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

A. The sum of the two lots of land in Jeju-si and the aggregate area of 456 square meters and 770 square meters in the aggregate area of 314 square meters in the E preceding 314 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) is owned by the Defendant and F, one-half share, and the 40 square meters in G road in Jeju-si located between the instant land and the public road (hereinafter referred to as “instant adjacent land”) are owned by H.

B. On April 16, 2018, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase the instant land (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant, and the main contents are as follows.

1) Sales price: 454 million won: A special contract to pay a penalty of KRW 30 million: “The seller shall compensate for the double amount of the down payment at the time of the termination of the contract, and the buyer shall not claim the return of the down payment after the termination of the contract.”

C. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 30 million on the day of the contract.

On June 12, 2018, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that contains “The land adjacent to the instant case, contrary to the terms and conditions of the instant contract, does not constitute the official map.” As such, the Plaintiff: (a) cancelled the instant contract; and (b) demanded the Defendant to pay KRW 60 million, an amount equal to the down payment pursuant to the special terms and conditions of the penalty; and (c) served the Defendant on the 14th day of

E. The current status of the instant land and the adjoining land of the instant case is as follows, and the fact that the adjoining land of the instant case is not a meritorious deed is not a dispute between the parties.

D E [Ground for recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry or video of Gap 1 through 6 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The main claim of this case was concluded on the premise that the land adjacent to this case was an official map, but it was known that the land adjacent to this case was merely a private road that cannot be used as an official map. Thus, the land adjacent to this case was defective due to lack of the nature agreed by the parties.