2. The Defendant: (a) KRW 100,000,000 for the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s accordingly, January 29, 2016.

Therefore, the facts that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 100 million to the Defendant on May 8, 2009 are not disputed between the parties, or can be recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in subparagraph 1. However, in the case where the Defendant, not by borrowing KRW 100 million, concluded a sales contract of KRW 850 million for KRW 50 million among the land in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Defendant and received KRW 500 million for down payment, and the Defendant asserted that it was against this, the above facts of recognition and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove this otherwise

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim for the loan is without merit.

2. Determination on the claim for refund of the purchase price, etc.

A. (1) The plaintiff's assertion (1) After paying the above KRW 100 million to the defendant, the defendant made a proposal to the effect that 100 square meters of the land of this case would be paid in kind among the land of this case, but there was no specific agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on the essential matters of the sale of 500 square meters of the land of this case, or there was no fact that the contract was made, so a valid sales

As alleged by the Defendant, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a sales contract of KRW 850,000 on the purchase price of KRW 500,000 among the instant land.

Even if the above sales contract was terminated, the defendant agreed to return the above KRW 100 million to the plaintiff, and even if the above sales contract was not terminated, the contract was terminated by the plaintiff's declaration of intent to cancel.

Therefore, the defendant shall return the above KRW 100 million to the plaintiff in preliminary case.