A story shared anonymously on an online community platform is drawing widespread attention.

The tale of a man in his 20s has become the subject of ridicule among online users after he revealed his unusual romantic arrangement. He entered into a contract-based relationship with a woman nearly 40 years older than him, lured by the promise of receiving a building as a gift after five years.

The poster, who claims to be in his late 20s, wrote on the online community Naver Knowledge iN, "I live in a rented place, and the 65-year-old landlady invited me for a drink. And we ended up drinking together."

He continued, "While drinking, the landlady proposed that we get into a five-year relationship and she would gift me the building by the end of the five years. Driven by greed, I accepted the proposal, and now it has been five years."

However, the problem arose when the woman went back on her words. According to the poster, the woman demanded that they continue their relationship for five more years and would not give him the building if he refused.

The poster claims that he has documentation of the original contract from five years ago, complete with a formal written agreement. According to him, the agreement included a clause stipulating that, after being together for five years, the building's deed would be transferred to his name free of charge.

He also mentioned having documents bearing both their signatures and fingerprints, as well as copies of their ID photos. However, he conceded that these documents were never officially notarized.

The poster claimed he was sharing his story on the online community to seek some legal advice. He explained, "Since more than five years have passed, can I take legal action to receive the building?"

In response, a lawyer shared his insight on the platform and stated, "Courts often consider acts of gifting real estate as compensation for illicit affairs or promises of payment for sexual favors as acts contrary to social order, tending to invalidate them. In this case, it seems likely that the court might view it as compensation for an illicit affair or relationship, increasing the possibility of being deemed void."

Internet users who encountered this bizarre story poured comments such as, "If you go for another five years, she might demand five more," "He should have taken cash instead," "There are new ways to scam people," "Wasted the most radiant five years of his life," and "Should have at least notarized it."