A. On August 13, 2005, the Plaintiff and C agreed that 333 square meters of the total sum of 9,546 square meters and 13 parcels (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) shall be the Plaintiff’s share, and the agreed amount shall be KRW 100 million, and the agreed amount shall be KRW 333,000,000,000, and the land owned C shall be provided as security (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and the Defendant and the Defendant jointly guaranteed the agreement.

B. On August 13, 2005, the Plaintiff paid KRW 61 million to C on August 13, 2005, and paid KRW 19 million to C on August 25, 2005. On September 5, 2005, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 20 million to C on September 5, 2005.

C. C did not provide the Plaintiff with a security or transfer of ownership pursuant to the foregoing agreement, and the real estate owned C among each of the instant real estate was awarded in 2012 by the voluntary auction procedure for real estate in around 2013.

On March 11, 2015, the Plaintiff notified C of the rescission of the instant agreement and sent C a notice of rescission of the agreement to the effect that the duty to restore is fulfilled by mail proving the content of the agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to deem that the instant agreement between the Plaintiff and C was cancelled on or around March 11, 2015, and the Defendant, a joint surety, has a duty to return KRW 100 million and its delay damages to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstances.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The instant agreement is that C acquired a certain portion of shares on behalf of the Plaintiff and paid the purchase price equivalent to shares at the time of the disposal of real estate, which is the case where land was purchased through title trust under a contract, and the sale price was to be received after resale. The Defendant’s violation of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate, which was prohibited from intermediate omission, is null and void in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act.