1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the entries as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and 22, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of the request for appraisal by the C appraiser office of this Court.

D The heir died on August 8, 1985, and he was the spouse, E, F, Plaintiff A, Defendant B, and G, the spouse, and the E died on December 13, 2005.

B. The land located in Seosan-si as indicated below (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by D was transferred to the Defendant as follows, and the market price of each land as of November 25, 2019 is as listed below:

On May 6, 1960, 1979, the title transfer date of land No. 4573С on May 6, 1960, the title transfer date of which was 1 I, 4573С on May 6, 1960, 370,413,000 square meters on November 15, 1979, the title transfer date of which was 34,320,000 square meters on July 15, 1979, the title transfer date of which was 17,40,000 square meters on December 18, 1970, the title transfer date of which was 526 square meters on July 6, 1980, the sum of which was 34,320,000 square meters on July 5, 1980, 70,500,781,600 square meters on July 6, 79, 1973.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff and D, the father of the plaintiff and the defendant, decided to donate or inherit the land of this case to the plaintiff on September 20, 1978, and the plaintiff agreed that the land of this case should be settled later in title trust with the defendant at the time of title trust. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the claim amount that the plaintiff claims part of the market price of the land of this case

(b) The plaintiff shall be deemed to have partially claimed according to the total market value ratio.

Judgment

The testimony of Gap evidence 11, Nos. 12, 15, and 16 and witness N alone donated or inherited the land of this case to the plaintiff on September 20, 1978.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since it is insufficient to recognize that there was a title trust and settlement agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.