1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts are as follows: “The result of fact inquiry to the superintendent of education of Ulsan Metropolitan City Office of Education of the court of first instance” in Part 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the fact inquiry to "the result of fact inquiry to the superintendent of education of Ulsan Metropolitan City Office of Education of the court of first instance", and therefore, it is identical to the part corresponding to the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it

2. The court's explanation on this part of the plaintiff's assertion is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus cite it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of

3. Determination

A. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the existence of a contract between the plaintiff and the deceased are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of “each video” to “K’s testimony” after the judgment of the court of first instance No. 5, No. 16.

B. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to the establishment of tort liability is that the part on the Defendant’s argument in part 12 and 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance “(3)” is identical to the corresponding part on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the entry as stated in the inseminator’s claim, and thus, this part is acceptable in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the

The defendant's assertion as to the plaintiff's assertion No. 3) asserts that each of the land of this case at the time when the defendant acquired the sale and purchase of this case by consultation is the only property of the deceased, and the above donation infringes on the legal reserve of inheritance of the deceased's heir, so the above donation does not constitute tort within the limit of one half of the shares of each of the land of this case.

In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that each of the instant lands was the only property of the Deceased at the time the Deceased donated each of the instant lands to the Plaintiff.