A. The plaintiff and the defendant are South Korean wholesalers.

B. On April 7, 2015, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Plaintiff, and the Defendant were consulted with respect to the inherited property as follows. On April 7, 2015, C, the date of the said consultation, C, the following: (a) issued cashier’s checks of KRW 55,00,000 at face value to the Plaintiff in return for the Plaintiff’s share in land; and (b) issued to the Defendant a cashier’s checks of KRW 60,00,00 at face value to the Defendant in return for the Defendant’s share in land.

1. The defendant's share 1/12 and the plaintiff's share 1/12 among the land size of 296 square meters in Pakistan-si, Pakistan-si, and the plaintiff and the defendant do not claim any right, but do not transfer any kind of registration.

2. When the plaintiff and the defendant violated paragraph 1, the act of violation shall be entirely invalidated, and the plaintiff and the defendant shall immediately pay three times the market price of the land specified in paragraph 1 to C.

3. Three of the judgment attached thereto shall be null and void.

C. C. B.

After issuing a check as stated in the port, the Plaintiff left the site after having left C, and after having left C, the Plaintiff left a cashier's check which is equivalent to 55 million won per face value and left the site.

The defendant used a cashier's check of KRW 55 million to repay his own loan between the plaintiff and the plaintiff.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, entry of Eul evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the above facts, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s cashier’s checks issued from C are deemed to be owned by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking payment of KRW 55 million equivalent to the face value is reasonable. 2) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff sought damages for delay from April 7, 2015 for the amount of KRW 55 million. However, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s monetary payment obligation against the Plaintiff constitutes a debt for which the deadline is not fixed, and thus, the Defendant is liable for delay from the time of receiving the Defendant’s claim for performance. Therefore, the starting date of the damages for delay is the case.