1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties, or may be admitted by each entry in Gap 1, 2, 4, and Eul 15.

Defendant B is the owner of the instant land.

B. On May 21, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the sale, transfer, and acquisition of corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendants. The Plaintiff was notarized on August 25, 2010 on the said contract, together with Defendant C, who concurrently held the status of the father’s agent.

1. The Plaintiff purchased 13 greenhouses of this case from the Defendants to 50 million won. 2. The Defendants transferred all agricultural crops to the Plaintiff for the period from May 21, 2009 to 10 years. 3. The Plaintiff shall pay the Defendants the land tax of KRW 15 million every three years (one million each year, with the payment of KRW 5 million each year, and the payment of KRW 5 million each year thereafter).

2. The parties' assertion

A. On August 25, 2010, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion purchased the instant cargo from the Defendants and leased the instant land.

The Defendants denied the Plaintiff’s right of lease against the said voucher and interfered with the Plaintiff’s cultivation within the said land, and transferred the said voucher twice to E.

Therefore, the right of lease on the above House is against the plaintiff.

(1) The Plaintiff’s intent of the claim is not clear, but appears to be purported to seek confirmation that the Plaintiff’s status of purchaser for the said parcels of land and the right to lease the said parcels of land are the Plaintiff. Furthermore, the Defendants are not obliged to obstruct the Plaintiff’s cultivation during the lease period or plant crops on the said land, and to pay 200,000 won per each unit of the said parcels of land in the event of the violation.

In addition, the plaintiff did not use the above land due to the obstruction of cultivation by the defendants, and thus is equivalent to the rent of the above land.