As to this, the defendant did not have concluded a sales contract with the plaintiff on the real estate of this case, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. If the parties to the determination prepare in writing a certain contract content between the parties to the contract, the expression used in writing shall not be cited, but the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of expressing it by the written contents, regardless of the parties’ internal intent, should be reasonably interpreted. In such a case, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence of the expression of intent and its contents should be acknowledged, barring special circumstances.

(Supreme Court Decision 2013Da2245 Decided April 26, 2013). According to the evidence No. 2-1 (a sales contract, and the defendant's assertion that the above document was altered, but there is no dispute as to the fact of sealing the stamp image after the defendant's name, and thus, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to be established), the defendant, on November 6, 2012, prepared a contract to sell the instant real estate to the plaintiff at KRW 150 million. Since the objective meaning of the text is clear, the plaintiff can be deemed to have purchased the instant real estate from the defendant in accordance with the text, and according to the evidence No. 2-2, No. 7, and No. 9, the fact that the plaintiff paid KRW 10 million out of the purchase price of the instant real estate to the defendant on November 28, 2012 can be acknowledged.

Therefore, the defendant.