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

A. The plaintiff is the lien holder of this court C case, and the defendant is the highest bidder of the above case, who has been awarded a successful bid on the land subject to auction (D et al. and four parcels at the time of the strike).

B. On December 26, 2011, the Plaintiff prepared a written waiver of the right of retention to the Defendant, and on the same day, the Defendant promised to pay the Plaintiff KRW 70,000,000 with the agreed amount of the right of retention. The Plaintiff prepared a written statement of performance stating that “When the Defendant implements civil engineering works on the D and four parcels at the time of strike, the Plaintiff shall consult on the payment of KRW 30,000,000 on the basis of the issuance and processing of tax invoices and sign and seal thereon on the condition that the agreement of the right of retention be settled to the Plaintiff.”

C. On December 27, 2011, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 70,000,000 for the agreed amount of the above lien.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 100,000,00 in return for the waiver of the right of retention, and that the Defendant did not pay KRW 70,000,000 for the remainder of KRW 30,000,00,000.

As to this, the Defendant: (a) paid KRW 70,00,000 to the Plaintiff for the waiver of the right of retention; (b) the Defendant incurred profits when executing civil works on the land subject to auction; and (c) paid KRW 30,00,000 on the condition that civil works are to be performed; and (d) the said condition as civil works are not fulfilled; and (e) the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay KRW 30,00,000,000.

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively integrating the purport of the entire pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and Eul evidence No. 1, are written only as follows, namely, the letter (Evidence No. 3) written by the defendant to the plaintiff, stating that "the amount of lien consultation: Malman0 million won (Article 70,000,000)" is written.