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

A. The Plaintiff, from Defendant, C, D, etc., lent KRW 1.1 billion to the Plaintiff’s purchase fund for each of the above land and each of the above land and buildings (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate”). The Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant real estate on August 11, 201, and completed each of the instant real estate registration.

B. As to the instant real estate, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the C and D, and C had completed the registration of the transfer in the D regarding part of its right to collateral security.

C. As to the instant real estate, D applied for voluntary auction to this court G, and the Defendant filed an application for voluntary auction to H of this court.

I, Defendant, etc. responded to the above voluntary auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”), and I awarded a contract on February 18, 2016 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 8, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5, 8 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted that the instant real estate was to be sold at KRW 1.1 billion after receiving a successful bid of the instant real estate at a price above KRW 950 million in the instant auction procedure, and agreed to sell the instant real estate at KRW 1.1 billion in the purchase price.

(2) In the auction procedure of this case, the Defendant entered into an agreement with 950 million won or more (hereinafter “instant agreement”). However, unlike the agreement of this case, the Defendant participated in the agreement of this case at least KRW 820,000,000, which is almost the minimum sale price, and eventually, the instant real estate was awarded to I.

Since the ownership of the instant real estate was transferred to I due to the Defendant’s non-performance of obligation in breach of the instant agreement, the said agreement was omitted in an impossible status.

In the absence of the defendant's default, the plaintiff has the real estate of this case.