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. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment below to the plaintiffs' new arguments by this court, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

【Judgment on a new argument】 On April 9, 2012, the Plaintiff is running a business by receiving a false tax invoice after becoming the representative director of the non-party company on April 9, 2012, and by appropriating the virtual park.

On September 28, 2012, after closing down a non-party company, and filing a corporate tax return for 2012 business years around April 1, 2013. In light of the circumstances of the instant donation contract concluded on April 25, 2013, which was 24 days after the date on which the said corporate tax was filed, it is reasonable to view that B was the donation of the instant real estate, which is the only property of the principal at the time, because it is anticipated that taxes will be imposed on the principal in the future, and that B was the donation of the instant real estate, which is the only property of principal at the time.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 5 submitted by the plaintiff in this court, the fact that the non-party company closed its business on September 28, 2012, and the non-party company reported its corporate tax for 2012 business year around April 1, 2013 as the representative of the non-party company, but it is recognized that the non-party company actually operated the non-party company, as seen earlier, is deemed to have been a partner of the non-party company B (Evidence No. 3 and 5). The non-party company's general investigation of value-added tax on the non-party company started around March 2016, the tax liability was finalized only after the non-party company reported its corporate tax base and tax amount, and it is insufficient to conclude that the non-party company concluded the donation contract of this case by concerns that the real estate of this case was seized after the non-party company's tax investigation was conducted after 24 days after the non-party company's corporate tax return, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is justified.