1. The Defendant concluded a contract with the Plaintiff on August 19, 2009 with respect to the land size of 8125 square meters in Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and the defendant were legally married couple, and on November 1, 2007, reported the divorce by agreement.

B. On August 19, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the designation of a person with parental authority, child support, etc. according to divorce, and concluded a contract with the effect that “the Defendant shall pay 30 million won as property division and consolation money to the Plaintiff up to August 19, 2014, and if the said money is not paid, it shall transfer the ownership of 8125 square meters of forest land C, Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-gu, the Defendant owned (hereinafter “instant land”) to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant contract”).

As to the instant contract, the No. 4950 No. 2009 No. 4950 was prepared on the same day.

C. However, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff KRW 30 million according to the instant contract.

[Evidence Evidence: The descriptions of Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the land of this case on the ground of the contract of this case.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) asserts as follows. That is, since a notarial deed on the instant contract was made for the unity of the judgment with the Plaintiff after the divorce with the Plaintiff, the Defendant thought that the notarial deed on the instant contract was not meaningful and did not have the validity of the instant contract without confirmation. The instant land purchased under the Defendant’s mother’s name in 201 with the Plaintiff and the adjudication. The actual owner of the instant land is D, and the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and his wife were living with the said land as collateral. However, after the adjudication was made, the ownership of the instant land cannot be transferred to the Plaintiff who brought a lawsuit for the alteration of the sex and the claim for child support against the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant’s assertion is recognized.