All appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and the appeal.

1. The reasons why the court of this case should be stated in this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following determination as to the assertion that the plaintiffs and the defendant added and emphasized as to the defendant's evidentiary property in this court, and as to the allegation that the plaintiff added and emphasized as to the defendant's inherited property in this case. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Additional determination

A. 1) With respect to T apartment, the key points of the Plaintiffs’ assertion were that the Plaintiffs owned by the deceased (not the nominal trust property) T apartment V (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) located in Busan City U.S. (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) and the deceased had increased the number of assets to the Defendant.

The argument is asserted.

2) Determination A) If Gap evidence Nos. 7 and Eul evidence Nos. 14 were to show the overall purport of the pleadings, it can be acknowledged that the ownership of the apartment of this case, the ownership of which was previously transferred to X was completed on February 25, 2004. However, in addition to Gap evidence Nos. 3-15, Eul evidence Nos. 15 through 18, 20 through 31, and Eul evidence Nos. 15 through 18, and Eul evidence Nos. 20 through 31, the whole purport of the pleadings in X testimony of the first instance witness X, that is, the apartment of this case purchased from X around January 5, 2004 and the defendant purchased from X to the same year under the understanding of X.

2. The registration of the transfer of ownership was completed in the name of the deceased on February 25, 200, and the ownership of the apartment of this case was completed in the name of the deceased, and the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon was cancelled on February 24, 2009 after the chonsegwon was established in the name of the deceased, and the defendant appears to have returned the above deposit money on February 24, 2009. In light of the above, it is reasonable to view that the apartment of this case was entrusted to the deceased by the defendant in the name of the deceased.

Even if the apartment of this case was owned by the deceased,

However, according to the above evidence, W, which is the defendant, who is not the defendant, on May 14, 2015, the apartment of this case where the ownership of the deceased had been completed before the death.