1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on September 3, 1990 with respect to the second floor CBD of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant real estate”), under the name of F, the wife of E on June 17, 2004, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 18, 2004 due to inheritance by consultation division.

B. The F died on October 26, 201, and the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on December 5, 201 under the name of the Defendant, who was the child of the net Fur (hereinafter “the deceased”) on December 5, 2011, due to inheritance by agreement and division on October 26, 201.

C. On October 7, 2015, the Defendant sold the instant real estate at KRW 150 million to G, a lessee of the instant real estate, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 11, 2015.

The plaintiff is the mother of the defendant, who is the deceased's father.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff had agreed on the division of inherited property with the Plaintiff and H (the Plaintiff’s words and the Defendant’s birth) upon the death of the deceased, sold the instant real estate at an appropriate time after completing the registration of ownership transfer under the Defendant’s name, and agreed on the price to be distributed according to the statutory share of inheritance.

As the Defendant sold the instant real estate at KRW 150 million on December 11, 2015, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 50 million (= KRW 150 million x 1/3) and damages for delay from December 12, 2015.

B. The written evidence Nos. 4 and 5 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.