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

On the other hand, among the land subject to the instant contract, the total area of 19 square meters, which is part of F and G, is divided into KRW 5,000,000, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 43,50,000 [=the above KRW 840,000-5,000-781,50,000 (the purchase price under separate contract)-781,50,000 (the total of the purchase price paid and the civil engineering design cost and the purification work cost paid by the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff)] and damages for delay.

In addition, the instant additional agreement intended to jointly manage KRW 200,000,000 in the account opened in the name of the Defendant under the instant agreement and reported the Plaintiff’s seal with the transaction seal stamp, but the Defendant changed the transaction seal without the Plaintiff’s consent and withdrawn it, and did not return it. As such, KRW 43,50,000, which is equivalent to the balance of the purchase price of the instant agreement, should be returned to the unjust enrichment.

2. Although the Plaintiff is also the person seeking the implementation of the instant contract, the Plaintiff is also the person who is also the Plaintiff. As such, on November 20, 2013, immediately after the Defendant established H, the instant contract was null and void because it changed its content to H as stated in the attached land sales contract, such as changing the purchaser to H on November 20, 2013, immediately after it was established by the Defendant, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the instant additional agreement, which was incorporated into the instant contract, was changed to H as well.