[A Evidence Nos. 1 and 6]

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 15 million from the Defendant as a monthly interest of KRW 300,00,000 from the Defendant, and only prepared a real estate sales contract and a promissory note notarial deed, and the right to possess, use, and benefit from the instant unauthorized building still remains to the Plaintiff.

As the plaintiff failed to pay interest at once, the defendant demanded the change of the name of the owner of an unauthorized building verification center and issued a certificate of personal seal impression inevitably.

B. The Defendant purchased an unauthorized building at KRW 26 million on March 17, 2004 and issued a receipt equivalent to the purchase price.

A promissory note notarial deed is prepared by the Plaintiff’s agreement to compensate the Defendant for the amount equivalent to the purchase price if the instant unauthorized building was demolished within two years.

On December 24, 2008, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a certificate of personal seal impression necessary to change the name of the owner of the instant unauthorized building.

3. In full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 2, 3-1, 2, and 3 as well as the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, the plaintiff may borrow 15 million won from the defendant as security, and may recognize the fact that the plaintiff has prepared a sales contract and a receipt for a promissory note with a face value of 26 million won, and contrary thereto, the plaintiff may not believe that each of the items of evidence Nos. 1, 6, 7, and 3-1, 2, and 3-1, 3-1, 3-2, which are fit for the defendant's assertion.

Therefore, the Plaintiff has the right to possess, use, and benefit from the instant unauthorized building, and as long as the Defendant contests this issue, the Plaintiff has the interest to seek confirmation, thereby admitting the Plaintiff’s claim.