(a) Of the lands listed in attached Forms 2 and 3 of the Schedule, the Attached Forms 1, 2, A, A, 3, 4, B, and 1 shall be as follows.

A. On March 12, 1998, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate.

B. As to the instant real estate, the Defendant issued an order No. 1-A.

As described in the port, two plastic houses, two warehouses, one house, and three chickens's house (hereinafter referred to as "grounds of this case") are installed, and agricultural houses are raised and livestock are raised.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 4, the result of on-site verification by this court, the result of appraiser C's survey and appraisal, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. In around 2004, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff was leased to the Defendant with a fixed term of 2 million won for reappointment and 10 years for lease. Since the Defendant did not pay two or more rents, the said lease contract was terminated on the ground that the Defendant did not pay two or more rents.

The defendant is obligated to remove the ground of this case to the plaintiff, deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff, and pay the overdue rent to the plaintiff.

Even if the above lease contract is not recognized, the Plaintiff seeks removal of the instant ground property and delivery of the instant real estate as an exclusion of interference based on ownership.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant real estate was owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendant is limited to the name of the Plaintiff when the Plaintiff and the Defendant paid the sales price in full. As such, the instant claim based on the premise that the instant real estate is owned by the Plaintiff alone is without merit.

3. Determination

A. According to the evidence No. 6 of the judgment on the claim for termination of the lease agreement, and witness E’s testimony, the Defendant: (a) acknowledged that the Defendant remitted the Plaintiff KRW 2 million to the Plaintiff on November 2007 and on January 2, 2009; and (b) stated that the witness E would pay the Plaintiff KRW 2 million per annum from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff; (c) however, there are circumstances where the Plaintiff and the Defendant stated that the Defendant would pay the Plaintiff KRW 2 million per annum with respect to the instant real estate.