The defendant shall pay 18,808,000 won to the plaintiff and the defendant shall pay 18,800 won to the plaintiff.

A. Plaintiff 1) agreed to assist the Defendant in planting the Defendant’s night tree, and the Defendant to pay the proceeds therefrom to the Plaintiff each year from 2010. 2) The Plaintiff has a claim for KRW 10 million against the Defendant with respect to the land on two lots of Cheongyang-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

3) The amount calculated on or around the end of 2015 is KRW 18,808,00. This is the amount calculated on or after the end of 2015. Moreover, as seen above, KRW 6 million is a sum of KRW 24,808,000 from the amount of 2016 to the amount of 200,000. Of the above two claims, the Plaintiff received KRW 21,808,000 per annum through D, and thus, the Plaintiff claimed KRW 21,808,000 per annum is not due to the intention of planting trees at night, but rather due to the intention of paying KRW 2 million in the event of harvest at night. There was no additional obligation to pay the said amount.

2) At the beginning of 2016, the cash custody certificate of KRW 10 million (Evidence A No. 2) was written.

In addition to the repayment through D by the lessee of the night tree complex, in addition to the repayment through D, the amount of KRW 700,000 won for the first time around October 2016, KRW 50,000, KRW 200,000, KRW 1,600, and KRW 10,000,000, KRW 1,60,000 for each payment in lieu of glutinous rice.

Of D's rent, the Plaintiff received 1.5 million won a year by 2020, in lieu of the Plaintiff, in addition to the Plaintiff's recognition of receipt of the rent.

All of them shall be deducted from the amount of cash storage certificate.

2. Determination

A. Attached A No. 1 (cash storage certificate) No. 2 (cash storage certificate) of the attached Form No. 1 (cash storage certificate) recognized the authenticity of the Defendant, and since the attached Form A No. 1 (cash storage certificate) recognized the fact that the Defendant signed on three parts of the Defendant, it is presumed that the Defendant was duly formed (the Defendant asserts that some of the entries in the attached Form No. 1 are not the Defendant’s body, but the assertion alone is insufficient to undermine the presumption of the authenticity of the evidence No. 1.

(2) The Plaintiff first drafted the evidence No. 2.