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

2. The key issue of the instant case is whether the Defendant’s remaining claim for remainder of KRW 180 million remains, in addition to KRW 150 million deposited with a passbook in the name of mother-friendly F on July 11, 2012, out of the purchase price under the E apartment Nos. 112 and 1604 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in Pyeongtaek-si D, which was owned by the network that completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 6, 2012 (Death on August 9, 2012).

In light of the records, the Plaintiff’s type G was deemed to have obtained a certificate of personal seal impression for sale on or around July 6, 2012 on behalf of the Plaintiff, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to prove that G was fully paid KRW 180 million from the Plaintiff’s legal reserve return lawsuit (this court 2012Gahap7320) to the Plaintiff as the down payment and the intermediate payment payment lawsuit (C’s seal). However, the issue of whether the Plaintiff may enforce liability for one act during the course of the sale is difficult to prove that the Plaintiff could directly claim the remainder payment against the Defendant in the instant case, even if there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Plaintiff directly claimed the remainder payment against the Defendant.

(2) The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.