1. The defendant is against the plaintiff 31/181 of 1,181 square meters out of 1,181 square meters prior to Gwangju Northern-gu B.

Basic Facts

On February 21, 2003, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership of 331/1,181/1,181 shares among the land B prior to Gwangju Northern-gu (hereinafter “instant land”). On January 22, 2009, the Defendant purchased 18 parcels of land including the instant land from C, and purchased 14 steel towers in and around the instant building, and its water network, and operates the said driving range (hereinafter “instant driving range”).

On September 3, 2009, the owner of the site of the instant golf driving range including the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on September 3, 2009, by asserting that the Defendant, while operating the instant golf driving range, uses and benefits from his own land without legitimate authority (hereinafter “the instant lawsuit”).

On July 1, 2010, the Plaintiff drawn up an explanatory note with the Defendant (hereinafter “each of the instant notes”) as follows:

1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to sell and purchase the real estate owned by the Plaintiff at the end of the case of land transfer lawsuit (this court 2009Gahap9685).

2. The average price at the time of sale was determined based on the expropriation of Gwangju Metropolitan City.

3. The Plaintiff decided to withdraw part of the case against the Defendant (this Court Decision 2009Gahap9685).

4. The Defendant provided that the Plaintiff shall pay the rent sealed.

On July 14, 2010, the Plaintiff withdrawn the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, and the instant lawsuit terminated on June 30, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Fact that there is no dispute, and the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings refers to the acceptance price of the site for the construction of the North-gu Health and Welfare Complex in the Masan Park, which was in progress at the time of the Masan Park’s expropriation of Gwangju Metropolitan City under paragraph (2) of this case, and the Defendant’s share from the Plaintiff among the instant land