1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 12, 2000, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase the 673m2,000 m2,000 m2,000,000 m2 (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. At the time of the conclusion of the above sales contract, the Defendant prepared and issued the following receipts (hereinafter “instant receipts”) to the Plaintiff:

The above amount shall be received in full as the purchase price of real estate in Gwangju-gun, Gwangju-gun.

Seller B (Person A) on September 12, 2000 HaHah

C. Meanwhile, around April 25, 2005, the land category of the 673 square meters in the above Gwangju-gun, Gwangju-si is divided into 16 square meters, D 112 square meters, and E 545 square meters, and on March 27, 2006, the land category was changed to the road around November 21, 2012, among them.

The public land was acquired through consultation with regard to 545 square meters.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant land” in addition to the sum of 16m2 and 112m2m2 in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si after division. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, the entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. As long as a disposal document is deemed to be authentic in its formation, the court shall recognize the existence and content of declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof to deny the contents of the statement.

(Supreme Court Decision 2014Da19776, 19783 Decided February 15, 2017). B.

The plaintiff entered into a sales contract on the land of this case with the defendant around September 12, 200, and the defendant prepared and ordered a receipt to the plaintiff that he received the full payment of the purchase price.

In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant received the full payment of the purchase price under the instant sales contract from the Plaintiff. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is about the instant land in accordance with the instant sales contract to the Plaintiff.