1. The Defendant’s KRW 121,200,000 as well as 5% per annum from February 13, 2018 to August 17, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) is a company that carries on real estate sales agency business, real estate consulting business, etc., and the Defendant is the representative director C.

B. On March 3, 2014, the Plaintiff and C entered into a sales contract with the purchase price of KRW 74,500,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with respect to the amount of KRW 1,000,000,000 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). At the time, the Defendant, who was the representative director of C at the time, entered into the contract into the agreement as “B to sell KRW 40,000,000” (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence No. 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As long as the formation of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that denies the contents of the statement.

Where a dispute over the interpretation of a contract between the parties becomes an issue, the interpretation of the intention of the parties indicated in the disposal document shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, motive and background of the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the

(Supreme Court Decision 2014Da19776, 19783 Decided February 15, 2017). B.

In addition to the above facts, the following circumstances, which can be known through the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, i.e., the parties to the conclusion of the sales contract of this case, namely, the parties to the sales contract of this case, and the defendant, as stated in the contract column of the sales contract of this case, contain only the names of “B” individuals, who are not “B”, as stated in the parties to the contract of this case, as stated in the column of the parties to the sales contract of this case, and ② the dialogue between the plaintiff, the defendant, and E present at the time of entering into the contract