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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

A. On May 29, 2006, E completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to F apartment Nos. 103, 208, 60 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. Around August 201, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against E, seeking a division of property, etc. based on a de facto marital relationship, with the Suwon District Court Branch Branch of 2011ddan1123, and on May 4, 2012, the conciliation was concluded that “E shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 52,00,000 as a division of property until June 29, 2012. If not paid by the date, the amount of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the following day to the date of the full payment.”

C. Meanwhile, on September 5, 201, the Plaintiff received a decision of provisional seizure of KRW 104,000,000 on the claim amount as to the instant real estate, and completed the registration of provisional seizure on the instant real estate. On February 20, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for compulsory auction on the instant real estate, and received a decision of compulsory commencement as Suwon District Court Ansan Branch D on February 21, 2013.

On March 26, 2014, the aforementioned court: (a) distributed KRW 13,00,000 out of KRW 124,655,825 to the Defendant, who is a small lessee; and (b) drafted a distribution schedule that distributes KRW 29,392,765 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

E. On March 31, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was the Defendant concluded a sales contract with E for the instant real estate, and the Defendant asserted that the provisional attachment registration for the instant real estate was completed and demanded E to return the down payment, claiming the termination of the said sales contract.

However, E has failed to refund the down payment, and the defendant has made the down payment of KRW 13,00,000 as the deposit for lease with respect to the real estate in this case between E and E.