1. A land loan relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant B on each land listed in the separate sheet at spring in 2010.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 9, 2009, Defendant B purchased each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”) from C (name D after alteration) and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the above Defendant’s name on December 24, 2009.

B. Defendant Korea Rural Community Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) was a part of the fourth River Slaughter project, and the project to remodel farmland (hereinafter “instant project”) was implemented from around 2010 to December 31, 201 at the time of the resident’s stay at the same time on the scopic spopic spopic spopic sprink.

C. Each of the instant land was publicly notified that it was not included in the instant project district on April 12, 2010, and was included in the said project district.

Accordingly, as the owner of each of the instant lands, the Defendant Corporation paid KRW 18,735,030 as the amount of farming loss compensation (i.e., the sum of the amount of farming loss compensation for each of the instant lands x 0.5) to Defendant B, who is a farmer residing in the relevant area (=37,470,060).

Meanwhile, 18,735,030 won (=37,470,060 x 0.5) for compensation for farming losses to be paid to the actual farmer of each of the lands of this case is reserved in the Defendant Corporation due to disputes between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B.

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the permanent address markets of this court, the fact inquiry results of the fact inquiry conducted on December 16, 2014, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. On January 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that each of the instant lands was not included in the instant project zone, and concluded a lease agreement with Defendant B, the husband of the instant land, on the condition that the Plaintiff would have spawn farmers in each of the instant land between Defendant B and E, but the Plaintiff would purchase agricultural materials, agricultural chemicals, etc. in the Fmaart operated by E or fill up soil in each of the instant land.

Since February 2010, the Plaintiff each of the instant cases.