1. The Defendant’s KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s 5% per annum from August 29, 2015 to March 16, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 19, 2015, C, an agent of the Plaintiff, concluded a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase the purchase price of KRW 132 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Defendant at KRW 140 million, and to pay KRW 30 million as the down payment (hereinafter “instant down payment”), KRW 30 million as the same day, the intermediate payment, and KRW 80 million as the remainder payment until July 30, 2015 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. On June 19, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded the instant sales contract, and paid the Defendant the instant down payment of KRW 30 million.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Both claims;

A. Plaintiff 1) requested for the introduction of land suitable for the purchase of a newly built site of the car center building to E, and the above E introduced land introduced from F to C and G, the Plaintiff’s agent, and the Plaintiff’s son, the Plaintiff. However, the above E, while guiding C and G on the instant land site, leading the instant land site to the above C and G, and leading the 258 square meters away from the instant land (hereinafter “the instant adjacent land”).

The Plaintiff explained that the instant land was the instant land. The Plaintiff purchased the instant land with an erroneous knowledge of the Plaintiff’s neighboring land. 2) The instant sales contract was concluded in a state that the Plaintiff did not establish a sales contract due to disagreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s declaration of intent on the subject matter of sale, or that it was concluded in a state that the Plaintiff caused mistake on the identity of the subject matter of sale, and thus, revoked the instant sales contract

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff the unjust enrichment of KRW 30 million which has already been paid to the plaintiff.

3. Preliminaryly, the down payment of this case is unfairly excessive as the estimated amount of damages, and the Defendant is out of the down payment of this case to the Plaintiff.