1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The parties indicated in the judgment of the court of first instance are indicated.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, except where the defendant added a “additional Judgment” as to the assertion emphasized or added by the court of first instance, and thus, it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. Additional determination

A. On June 20, 2005, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s “performance commitment to the transfer of name” made by the Plaintiff (designated parties, hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the designated parties on June 20, 2005 is an expression of intention not having been made for the purpose of “time penalty” in order to help the Plaintiff and the designated parties, without genuine intent of donation, to support the situation where M is difficult to recover the purchase fund.

In the declaration of intention of a health team and a medical team, the term "medical team" refers to the idea of a voter who intends to express a specific content, and it does not mean that the speaker is true and correct in mind.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da47361 Decided December 27, 2002, etc.). Therefore, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is difficult to acknowledge that the Defendant’s expression of intent to implement the obligation to transfer the name is a bad declaration of intention, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected without any justifiable reason, as it is no longer necessary to examine the remainder of the issue.

B. The Defendant again expressed his/her intent to donate the Defendant’s shares in each of the above forests to the Plaintiff and the designated parties on the condition that the Defendant would recover development gains through the development project for the Gangwon-gun C Forest and D Forest and fields in the future. However, in an uncertain situation whether the above conditions may be fulfilled or not, the Defendant’s said “the performance commitment to transfer the name” was based on the said “the performance commitment to transfer the name.”