1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The defendant's main grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance. The fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are justifiable even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is added to the evidence submitted in this court.

Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows, except for the addition of “additional Determination” as to the Defendant’s assertion made by the court during the instant case, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

2. Additional determination

A. As to the sale of forest land of this case jointly purchased pursuant to the instant trade agreement with the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s assertion was solely assumed of KRW 105,305,30,307,440, including local tax and capital gains tax, from November 2015 to June 2019. As such, the Plaintiff, who is a partner, is obligated to bear the Defendant’s burden of KRW 52,653,720 (=105,307,440 x 1/2) equivalent to 1/2 of the said amount.

Therefore, as in the judgment of the court of first instance, even if the amount of the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant in relation to the forest of this case is KRW 22,563,396, the Defendant’s claim is set off against the Plaintiff’s claim of KRW 52,653,720, which the Defendant had against the Plaintiff, and the Defendant

B. The Defendant’s assertion on the determination is premised on the premise that the Defendant had a claim against the Plaintiff for the aforementioned settlement amount under the instant trade agreement. As seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the final settlement agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with respect to the instant forest was reached around June 20, 2015, and that the settlement agreement was included in the comprehensive consideration of both the transfer income tax, etc. that has already occurred or is likely to have occurred as to the instant forest. The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is an additional settlement amount related to the Plaintiff’s burden of transfer income tax.