Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On January 26, 2017, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with the right holder and the Defendant for the purchase price of 1.32 billion won with respect to the land, other than Incheon-gun, Incheon-gun, Incheon-gun, which is owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “former sales contract”), and received KRW 100 million as the down payment from the first priority holder on the date of the contract.

B. On April 14, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant and the Defendant to purchase KRW 42,400,000,00 of the purchase price of KRW 42,42,00,00,000 among the instant sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The subject matter of the instant sales contract is part of the subject matter of the previous sales contract.

(c)

On April 16, 2018, the Defendant cancelled the previous sales contract with the well-known, and returned the down payment amount of KRW 100 million to the well-known on the same day.

(d)

On April 18, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 40 million to the preferred purchaser.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On April 17, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted and determined that the Defendant: (a) paid the down payment of KRW 40 million to the buyer upon the conclusion of the previous sales contract; (b) paid the down payment to the buyer; and (c) returned the said KRW 40 million from the Defendant; and (d) remitted the said KRW 40 million to the first person; and (b) paid the full payment to the Defendant thereafter, the Defendant is obligated to return the full payment to the Plaintiff with unjust profits.

The argument is asserted.

However, the above facts and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff paid 40 million won to the senior purchaser who was the purchaser of the previous sales contract on behalf of the defendant upon the defendant's request, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in full view of the description of the evidence No. 1 and the witness H’s testimony, the Defendant cancelled the previous sales contract on April 16, 2018.