beta
Text
1. As to the real estate stated in [Attachment I] 1 to 5 among the lawsuits against the plaintiff against the defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff owned the 153,248 square meters of E forest land (hereinafter “E-land before division”) and the 10,301 square meters of F field, G, 208 square meters prior to G, 1,230 square meters prior to H, 393 square meters of land for I stock farm, 7,939 square meters of J forest, 242 square meters of K forest, 121 square meters of L forest, 4,357 square meters of land for M stock farm, which are adjacent thereto.
B. After the subdivision, Nsports site was subject to registration conversion with 9,898 square meters (9,898 square meters on June 10, 1996, which became 9,898 square meters on an Osports site, and was divided into 9,898 square meters on July 25, 201, following a change in the name of the administrative district on July 25, 201) and 56,217 square meters of P forest and fields.
On April 21, 2010, the instant P forest was subject to registration conversion into Q forest 56,401 square meters, and on April 21, 2010, the said P forest was indicated as each real estate indicated in Q forest 1,230 square meters, R forest 1,227 square meters, 44 square meters, T forest 8,54 square meters, 8,554 square meters, U forest 4,946 square meters (attached Table 1 through 5; hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”). Meanwhile, each of the instant real estate was indicated as each of the instant real estate divided into an administrative district subject to registration cancellation prior to the change of administrative district name on July 25, 2011.
C. On September 7, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) recognized the Defendant’s and the Defendant’s father (the outside third village of the Plaintiff)’s contribution to protect the Plaintiff’s property; (b) made a statement letter that the method is substituted by the notarial deed of a monetary loan contract for consumption of money by a law firm; (c) obtained the certification from the law firm No. 474 on the same day; (d) approved the Defendant as the law firm No. 136 on the same day on September 7, 2009 that the liability amounting to five billion won as of September 7, 2009; and (e) made a notarial deed of a debt repayment contract with a rate of 20% per annum (a quasi-loan contract for consumption).
This case is a quasi-loan contract which was notarized.