The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

after the filing of an appeal.

1. The reasoning for this part of the facts of recognition is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. On March 16, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) purchased the instant land from Korea Rural Community Corporation; and (b) completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant; and (c) if the partial repayment for the purchase of land is fully repaid, the Defendant made an oral agreement to return the said land to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant agreement”); and (b) on October 31, 2017, the payment of the partial repayment for the said land was completed; (c) accordingly, the Defendant is liable to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the instant land to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination on April 2, 2012, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 1,702,200, including acquisition tax on the instant land and fees for certified judicial scrivener, on behalf of the Plaintiff, and remitted KRW 30,817,110 out of the repayment amount of the instant land that the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Defendant, as seen earlier. According to the evidence Nos. 13 and Nos. 4 and 5 (including the number) of the evidence Nos. 13 and 13, the Plaintiff submitted an application to sell the instant land to the Korea Rural Community Corporation on March 16, 2012, and the Defendant submitted an application to sell the instant land to the said Corporation on the same day, and the Plaintiff submitted an application to purchase the instant land to the said Corporation on the same day, but it is recognized that the Plaintiff paid the agricultural electricity charges on the instant land by December 2, 2019, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone to the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

It is insufficient to recognize otherwise, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (the statement of evidence Nos. 7 through 9 and the testimony of witness D of the first instance trial as shown in the plaintiff's assertion are merely the contents that the plaintiff appeared to talk about the agreement of this case from the plaintiff, and rather, according to the whole purport of the above evidence and the argument, the plaintiff spawn in the land of this case.