1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 36 million and KRW 7.2 million among them.

1. The reasons for the entry in this case are as follows: “H” in Part 7 of Part 4 of the first instance judgment as “E”; “Additional Judgment” is added between the second and third parties of the seventh instance judgment; “The part on offsetting negligence” in the first instance judgment as “A. The part on offsetting negligence” in Article 7-8 of the first instance judgment; “In addition, the part on offsetting negligence” is as stated in the reasons for the first instance judgment, except that the part below [the part to be corrected] is the same as the part on which the first instance judgment is stated. Therefore, this is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Additional Determination] Although the defendant alleged that Gap evidence No. 8 was forged, it is not sufficient to recognize the evidence No. 7-1 and No. 2 only by the statement No. 7-2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 8 and 12-4, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 50 million to theO on June 22, 2016, and the Plaintiff transferred KRW 50 million to theO account on the same day.

In addition, M argues that the termination of a sales contract with the Plaintiff is not due to the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the duty of cancelling the registration of provisional seizure of this case, but due to the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage established on H land, but due to the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage established on H land. However, according to the purport of the written evidence No. 7 and the entire pleadings, M’s failure

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

【Revisioned Part】

C. Negligence offset: (a) The following circumstances revealed by each of the aforementioned evidence, i.e., ① the Plaintiff’s request for cancellation of provisional seizure by sending letters to the Defendant, such as sending a certification of content, appears to have been rejected by the Defendant; and (b) Kdo which is a certified judicial scrivener employee, talks that the cancellation of provisional seizure is necessary for the Defendant’s cancellation of provisional seizure on the remaining land which was subdivided into part of the Defendant at the time.