A. A. On December 20, 2006, C completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on December 15, 2006, with respect to 2,430 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The instant land is adjacent to the land E (hereinafter “the instant adjacent land”) and was allowed to enter the instant land by passing through the instant adjacent land. However, the owner of the instant adjacent land was prevented from entering the instant land around January 2007, which was after the said ownership transfer registration.

C. Around August 29, 2008, the Defendant received KRW 5,000,000 from C’s spouse F, and as a consideration, received consent from F so that F may use part of land owned by G, such as part of the adjoining land of this case, as a road for access to the land of this case, and then completed a written consent for use. In the absence of the written consent for use, the Defendant issued a letter of consent stating that C would return KRW 5,00,000 if it did not receive the written consent for use (hereinafter “each letter of this case”).

The Defendant: (a) knew well of the fact that the land owned by G is not necessary for entering the instant land; (b) provided that G would obtain the consent of use from G on the premise that the land owned by G is necessary for the entry of the instant land, on the ground that G was well aware of the fact that G had the owner of the adjoining land; (c) provided that H or G did not receive the consent of use for the passage of the instant adjoining land; and (d) did not request the consent of use.

E. Around that time, I was delegated by the Plaintiff to purchase land in the two-dimensional area and colors the purchased land, and the instant land from the Defendant around September 1, 2008.