1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is that the court admitting this case is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case. The second and nine parties of the judgment of the court of first instance admitting “a de facto marital spouse” as “spouse” and the ground of appeal pointing out that the Plaintiff’s assertion in the court of first instance pointing out the grounds of appeal as the grounds of appeal excluding adding the judgment as set forth in

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As the grounds of appeal, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant did not pay KRW 1.5 billion to the Plaintiff even though the instant agreement (the instant land and building, the deceased’s inherited property, shall be owned solely by the Defendant, which shall be assessed as KRW 8 billion, and shall be assessed as KRW 2 billion, the collateral obligation and all taxes shall be determined as KRW 2 billion, which shall be deducted, and the Defendant shall pay the remainder of KRW 6 billion to the Plaintiff, KRW 2 billion, and one billion to the rest of the heirs) was reached in around 201.

B. However, in addition to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance 2-B, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated at the court of first instance and the first instance. i.e., the Plaintiff’s assertion is premised on the premise that the building of this case is the deceased’s inherited property (the deceased’s title trust property to the Defendant and E), but even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, even according to the Plaintiff’s claim, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the name of Defendant and E around 1990 after the construction of the building of this case by using the land located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, where the transfer registration of ownership was completed in the name of the Defendant and E around 198, with the compensation for expropriation from around 199 when the building of this case was newly constructed. E operated a reading room on the fourth floor of the building of this case and operated the building of this case from around 1996 when the Defendant worked in the pharmaceutical company.