1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications or additions, and thus, they are quoted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used or added;

(a) by inserting the following parts subsequent to the “influence” in Section 11 of Part 5 of the first instance judgment:

From 2010 to 2013, value-added tax (amount of sales) was imposed on KRW 16,60,00 in the year 2010, KRW 29,69,900 in the year 201, KRW 28,55,00 in the year 2012, and KRW 1,925,00 in the year 201.

(B) The order of the director of the tax office having jurisdiction over North Korea of the court of first instance to submit tax information.

The first instance court's 6th, 7th, and 15th, "only borrowing money (as alleged by the court of the first instance)" was construed as "the borrowing of money (as alleged by the court of the first instance) or donation (as alleged by this court of the first instance)."

(c) by inserting the following parts subsequent to the sixthth sentence of the first instance court:

In addition, on August 29, 2012, 11:12:33(E) remitted KRW 11,741,00 to the Defendant (the balance of the previous Defendant’s account was zero won). The Defendant paid taxes including capital gains tax of KRW 10,322,590 on 11:15:25 on the same day immediately thereafter.

(A) No. 13. D.

Of the judgment of the first instance court, “3) The assertion that the ownership belongs to the Defendant according to the division of property agreement” (as set out in the following subparagraphs, the title of the Defendant was attributed to the Defendant pursuant to the division of property agreement (as set forth in the 9th judgment of the first instance court, No. 16 through No. 10th 4). 3) The Defendant asserted that the ownership belongs to the Defendant pursuant to the division of property agreement, even though C had a title trust with the Defendant on the 1/2 portion of the real property, C entered into a property division agreement with the Defendant on the 1/3 portion of the real property, while the agreement on the division of property was married with the Defendant, and thereby, C terminated the

A.