A. On May 18, 2007, the Residents Development Committee entered into an enforcement service contract with the Defendant to commission the implementation of the E Residential Environment Improvement Project (hereinafter “instant project”) and consulting services (hereinafter “instant contract”). Under the instant contract, the E bears the Defendant’s duty to pay the price of the State-owned and public land that the E residents would lose, instead, to enable the construction to proceed with the construction.

B. On May 16, 2008, the Plaintiff, a resident of E, purchased 289.16/16/773.16/77 from the State (the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, the disposition agency, and the Seodaemun-gu Office) in Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, for KRW 316,106,60, and for KRW 6,272,000 from the State (the Ministry of Justice, the disposition agency, and the Seoul detention center), each of the above down payment and the compensation amount are to be paid from the State (the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Justice, and the Seoul detention center) until July 15, 2008.

On the same day, the defendant paid a total of KRW 43,680,270 to the Seodaemun-gu Office and Seoul detention center for the down payment and indemnity of each of the above lands, but was refunded KRW 2,840,750 to refund the amount overpaid or erroneously paid KRW 40,839,520.

C. Since then, the Defendant did not pay the intermediate payment and the remainder of each of the above land, the Plaintiff was urged to pay the remainder and the overdue interest from the Seodaemun-gu Office on January 2, 2010. On February 2, 2010, the Plaintiff paid the remainder amount of KRW 291,458,440. On October 10, 2013, the Plaintiff urged the Korea Asset Management Corporation to pay the overdue interest amounting to KRW 66,408,380 due to the outstanding payment of the outstanding interest amount, and paid the said overdue interest to the Korea Asset Management Corporation on December 20, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 10, 18 evidence (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The judgment on the cause of the claim did not perform the duty of land balance prohibition under the instant contract, and thus, barring any special circumstance, the damage equivalent to the overdue interest accrued to the Plaintiff, 66,408,380 won and its corresponding amount.