1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. According to Gap evidence No. 2 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 2, 2007 with respect to the land entered in the order owned by the defendant (hereinafter "the land of this case") as the cause of sale on September 28, 2007, and the fact that the defendant currently occupies the above land while growing crops from the land of this case does not conflict between the parties.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to collect crops planted on the ground of the instant land and deliver the said land to the Plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances, depending on the exercise of the Plaintiff’s right to exclude interference based on the Plaintiff’s ownership.

2. The Defendant asserts that the land of this case can be cultivated free of charge by 2020 according to the agreement with the Plaintiff.

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1, No. 1 (in the absence of dispute over the signature and unmanned part of the Plaintiff, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on February 22, 2014 to gratuitously cultivate the land of this case by paying to the Defendant KRW 16 million to the Defendant for the period of 2020, while the Plaintiff and the Defendant had experienced a dispute over whether the land sold to the Plaintiff is the land of this case or another land.

Therefore, according to such agreement, the Defendant has the right to possess the instant land by the year 2020.

As such, the defendant's argument is reasonable.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.