The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As long as the formation of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable proof as to the denial of the contents stated in the disposal document.

(2) The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of a conspiracy, thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. It did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of a conspiracy, thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

(2) On November 27, 2001, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a pre-sale agreement with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) registered as the Defendant on July 12, 2007 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da51626, Nov. 27, 2001; 2005Da39617, Jul. 12, 2007). The lower court acknowledged the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a pre-sale agreement (hereinafter “the instant pre-sale agreement”) and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s right to claim transfer of ownership on the instant real estate was completed for the provisional registration under the Plaintiff’s name, and based on its stated reasoning, it is difficult to deem that the instant pre-sale agreement was concluded through a false or genuine contract, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground of the conclusion of the instant

3. However, it is difficult to accept such a determination by the lower court for the following reasons.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning and duly admitted evidence, the following facts are revealed.

1) A) On January 2005, H, the Defendant’s living together, agreed to purchase approximately KRW 26,000 square meters of land on the 21st place located in Busan-gun Nan-gun, Busan-gun (hereinafter “Nan-gun”) and around 21 square meters of land owned by the said company (hereinafter “N land”).

B H is the land above in the name of the Defendant who is a penalty.