1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 7,1260,00 and 15% per annum from March 4, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

1. The Plaintiff, on November 18, 2015, entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with respect to the right to sell the real estate, which is set at KRW 350,630,000,000,000, for the right to sell the real estate in Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), and agreed to provide the Plaintiff with all documents related to the transfer and acquisition of the right to sell and to compensate for the double amount of the down payment (35,60,000,000,000,000,000,000).

According to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff paid the down payment (3,5630,000 won) to the Korea Assets Trust instead of the Defendant, and paid the Defendant KRW 50,000 as a separate price for the sale of the right to sell.

On December 23, 2015, the date of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to submit documents relating to the resale of the sales right, and the Defendant additionally demanded KRW 1 million around December 26, 2015.

On January 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to provide the documents on the transfer or acquisition of the right of sale according to the instant sales contract, but the Defendant was dismissed from Japan, and on January 22, 2016, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail to the effect that the Plaintiff would cancel the sales contract if he/she refuses to comply with the request for the provision of the above documents, and the said mail reached the Defendant around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-6 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. While the Plaintiff asserts that the period during which the Plaintiff’s obligation to provide documents is due is that the period during which the Plaintiff requested the submission of the documents relating to the transfer of the right to sell in lots pursuant to the instant sales contract, the Defendant asserts that the first intermediate payment is possible after the payment of the first intermediate payment under the instant real estate supply contract. As such, the Plaintiff agreed to provide documents related to the right to sell in lots after February 25, 2016, which is the date of the first intermediate payment payment

The instant case between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.