1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s share 1/10 out of 979 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Seoul, with respect to the Plaintiff’s share on 207.

Basic Facts

The reasoning for this part of this court is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff” in Section 9 of Section 2 of the judgment of the first instance is “Defendant”; and (b) the column in Section 17 of the judgment of the first instance [based on recognition] is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except that the Plaintiff’s “judgments by service by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)” is written “A, 2, 3, 4-1, 2, 4-1, 5, 6.”

Plaintiff’s assertion

On May 29, 2007, the primary deceased borrowed the instant money from the Plaintiff, and the said borrowed money was repaid with the money sold 979m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to Chungcheongnam-gun budget-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and agreed to transfer the ownership of the instant land to the Plaintiff if it is impossible to resell it.

The Deceased died on August 3, 2009, and accordingly, the Deceased could not resell the instant land.

Therefore, the Defendant, one of the deceased’s inheritors, is obligated to perform the registration procedure for ownership transfer as to shares of 1/10 of the Plaintiff’s share in the instant land among the instant land according to the agreement.

Preliminary assertion was made on May 29, 2007 by leasing KRW 30,000,000 to the Deceased, and the time when the land of this case was resold was set as the time of repayment. On August 3, 2009, the time of repayment for the said loan became due due to the Deceased’s death.

The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan obligation of KRW 3,00,000 (=30,000,000 】 1/10) and the delay damages for the loan obligation inherited from the Deceased.

In full view of Gap evidence No. 2, Gap evidence No. 4-1, No. 2, Gap evidence No. 5, and No. 6, the plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to the deceased around May 29, 2007, and the deceased sold the land to a third party and agreed to transfer the ownership of the land of this case to the plaintiff if the land of this case is not sold.