1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's further choice claim is dismissed in this court.

3...

1.In order to purchase real estate and engage in rental business, the Defendant and D (Plaintiffs) shall agree to make a joint investment and faithfully comply with the following terms under the good faith principle in good faith:

(1) Object of investment: Buildings in this case (2) The defendant and D shall jointly borrow funds from financial institutions.

Provided, That the borrower shall be the defendant and D shall be the form of security.

(3) In principle, the ownership shall be jointly owned, but the defendant shall own 2, 3, and 4 underground and 202 above ground, and D shall own 1 underground and 108 above ground.

(4) A real estate lease shall be conducted in consultation with each other, and a lease contract prepared without consultation shall be null and void.

(5) The bank shall settle its funds and other expenses (including taxes and public charges) monthly from the income from the lease of earnings allocated to 5:5.

(6) Basic management of real estate and other tax reports, etc. arising from such real estate management shall be made under the responsibility of the defendant.

(7) The sale of real estate may be agreed upon at the time a reason for the sale of real estate occurs, and loans borrowed from financial institutions shall be repaid in full.

(8) The real estate subject to prohibition of resale shall be managed jointly, and shall not be resold to another person without agreement.

In around 2006, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s husband C entered into a joint investment agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with respect to D, each spouse of the Defendant, as well as respect to the building E, 2, 3, and 4 under the name of the Defendant, and the ground Nos. 108 and 202 (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. C purchased the instant building in KRW 1.28 billion on August 10, 2006, and completed each registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant and D as classified by the instant agreement on December 22, 2006.

C. Meanwhile, although the instant agreement states C and the Plaintiff as the investment ratio of 50:50, the Defendant husband C is 46.7%, and the Plaintiff is 20%.