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 reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the remaining parts or added parts as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[2. The damaged part]

A. On the 3rd part of the judgment of the court of first instance, “each of the above evidence, Gap’s evidence, and evidence Nos. 5 through 7” are cited as “each of the above evidence, Gap’s evidence No. 2, and Gap’s evidence No. 5 through 7.”

B. On the 3rd page of the first instance judgment, “the Plaintiff” in the 14th sentence is regarded as “the Defendant.”

C. On the 3rd page of the judgment of the first instance, the Plaintiff, a senior grandchild, is deemed to be “the Defendant, a senior grandchild” in the 15th sentence.

On July 28, 2015, the first instance judgment No. 4, 10 of the first instance judgment, " July 28, 2013", shall be deemed " July 28, 2015."

E. On the fourth part of the judgment of the first instance, “the Plaintiff” in the first instance judgment No. 16 shall be deemed to be “the Defendant.”

F. On the fourth page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant’s “N” in Part 18 is regarded as “N, who is the Defendant’s ar.”

[3] The defendant asserts that there is no fact that the plaintiff sent the above mobile phone message to the defendant, and that the plaintiff's expression of intent (i.e., the plaintiff's expression of intent to divide the inheritance of the real estate of this case to be inherited solely by the defendant, but the revocation or withdrawal thereof is not effective) is not effective.

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff did not have expressed an intention to reach an agreement on the division of inherited property with the content that the Defendant is to solely inherit the instant real property.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that there was an expression of agreement on division of the above inherited property is without merit.

4. The plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.