1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 50,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from January 11, 2015 to March 26, 2015.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim and all the pleadings, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff a total of KRW 50 million to the plaintiff who is the construction business operator by January 10, 2015 (hereinafter “instant agreement”) after purchasing from Ansan-si, the members D and two parcels of land and buildings (hereinafter “instant land and buildings”) from Ansan-si, Ansan-si, and to pay the plaintiff a total of KRW 50 million by January 10, 2015. As such, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff a total of KRW 50 million from January 11, 2015 to March 26, 2015, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case from January 11, 2015 to March 26, 2015, the amount of money calculated by the annual rate of 20% as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

2. The Defendant’s assertion asserts that, by January 10, 2015, E, the actual owner of the instant land and building, the Defendant agreed to pay the instant agreement to the Plaintiff on the condition that he completed the instant building and undergo a completion inspection.

On the other hand, the facts that a certain juristic act constitutes a so-called condition precedent that takes effect upon the fulfillment of a condition are asserted and proved by a person who seeks to challenge the occurrence of the legal effect on the ground that it prevents the occurrence of the legal effect on the part of a certain juristic act from occurring.

It is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant paid the instant agreed amount to the Plaintiff under the foregoing conditions, on the sole basis of the written evidence Nos. 93Da20832, Sept. 28, 1993, and Nos. 1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (as seen in the foregoing, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 50 million by January 10, 2015 without any justifiable reason). The Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted as reasonable.