beta
Text
1. The plaintiff
A. As from May 1, 2015, Defendant B: (a) KRW 9,33,33 and its related costs;
B. Defendant C and E are with each of 6,222,222 won.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 25, 2006, the Plaintiff leased and used “114 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gu, G, and H, 7152 square meters (hereinafter “the instant ginseng field”) from Nonparty F, which was determined as KRW 28,00,000,000 for the time of ginseng extraction with the consent of the first police officer on January 25, 200, while having obtained the consent of the owner of the ginseng field.
B. As to the above rent, I prepared and awarded a loan certificate to the Plaintiff, setting the period of the rent payment in 2013 and 2014 at the time of extracting the said rent for the four-year ginseng in 2013 and the five-year ginseng mining.
C. Around 2014, I extracted all five-year ginseng from the ginseng dry field of this case. D.
I died of her illness on October 13, 2014, and succeeded to I's property and obligations in proportion to 3/9 shares of Defendant B, who was his spouse, and 2/9 shares of Defendant C, D, and E, who were their children.
E. Defendant B was served with a copy of each instant complaint on April 30, 2015, Defendant D on April 29, 2015, Defendant C and E on June 1, 2015.
[Based on the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 (family relation certificate), Nos. 2 (land lease contract), 3 (land lease contract), and Nos. 4 (G. 4) are different from that of the ginseng field, but according to the appraiser J's appraisal result, since the seal affixed on this loan certificate is recognized by I, I is presumed to have affixed the seal, and the above loan certificate is presumed to have been duly established. In addition, although it is inappropriate to choose some words such as "debt," as stated in the loan certificate, it is reasonable to interpret that "I will make a payment at the time of ginseng extraction because it borrowed KRW 28,00,000,000," the main contents of the loan certificate are different from that of the ginseng field of this case, but there is no dispute between the parties to this case and the ginseng, and there is no error or error in the name of the parties to this case other than the ginseng bill of this case.