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. Basic facts

A. On February 199, the Plaintiff and the Defendant made an investment in the land located in Gwangju-si and divided the profits therefrom. On February 1, 1999, the Plaintiff and the Defendant purchased 1,653 square meters (500 square meters, hereinafter “instant land”). Of the purchase price, KRW 192.5 million (350 square meters) out of the purchase price was borne by the Plaintiff, and the remaining KRW 82.5 million (150 square meters) were to be borne by the Defendant, and the ownership of the instant land was transferred in the name of the Defendant.

B. The instant land was transferred to the Korea National Housing Corporation on November 1, 2005 due to the acquisition of the land for public use by consultation, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant received KRW 914,763,290 from the Korea National Housing Corporation as compensation for the land and obstacles, and divided it.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant, after the expropriation of the instant land, purchased E Apartment F from the Korea National Housing Corporation on December 2008, and the association composed of self-fluorial farmers of the land located within the G Area Development Zone, including the instant land, was sold by the Korea National Housing Corporation in lots the H site 915.7 square meters of the land located within the G Area Development Zone.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant purchased the instant land. Of the purchase price, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land, the Defendant shall bear KRW 192.5 million, and the Defendant shall bear KRW 82.5 million ( approximately KRW 7: Defendant 3’s ratio), and the Defendant shall mutually divide the profit accrued from the said investment according to the above ratio (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

The defendant acquired the apartment sale right under the pretext of the relocation measures and the sales right under the name of the sales right, and even if sold each, the profit was not divided. 2) Accordingly, the defendant's apartment sale right, which is the remaining property of the association under the agreement of this case, is the plaintiff.