1. The Defendant’s donation on November 25, 2015 to the Plaintiff is limited to the real estate indicated in the separate sheet.

1. The fact that the Defendant, on November 25, 2015, made a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to the effect that the real estate (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant donation contract”) is donated to the Plaintiff, which is the Defendant’s ownership, may be recognized by adding the entire purport of pleadings to the respective entries in the evidence Nos. 1 and 9, unless there is any dispute between the parties concerned or by adding to the entire purport of pleadings. Meanwhile, the court shall interpret the disposal document, the authenticity of which is recognized, in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document, unless there is any special circumstance.

In light of the above facts and legal principles, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer of the land of this case to the plaintiff according to the gift contract of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant’s defense, on October 20, 2015, sold land, including 1,352 square meters, to the Korea Rural Community Corporation prior to Hagu-Seoul, Chungcheongnam-gun, and the Plaintiff purchased each of the said land from the Korea Rural Community Corporation on November 5, 2015.

However, the Defendant, at that time, made an error that the instant land adjacent to the said land, etc. was sold to the Korea Rural Community Corporation, and prepared the instant donation contract with the Plaintiff, and thus, revoked the instant donation contract by delivering a duplicate of the written reply.

B. According to the evidence No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant prepared a contract with the Korea Rural Community Corporation on October 20, 2015 to sell three parcels of land to the Korea Rural Community Corporation on October 20, 2015.

However, in light of the following circumstances, the above evidence evidence Nos. 2 and 8, and the purport of the entire argument, the gift contract of this case only appears to have been duly prepared according to the defendant's intent, and the above facts and evidence No. 2 were written.