The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 11, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s husband C sold the instant land in the amount of KRW 650 million to the Defendant and D (hereinafter “instant land”) at the Namyang-si, the amount of KRW 457 square meters (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”) and KRW 100 million, at the time of the contract, at the time of the contract, the remainder KRW 50 million and KRW 50 million were to be paid respectively on June 10, 2016.

B. On April 11, 2016, the Defendant paid KRW 100 million to the above C.

C. On October 30, 2017, the Defendant prepared and sent the following documents to the Plaintiff.

1) In the issuer column, the Defendant’s name is written in writing and the seal is affixed to a promissory note printed in the same text, and the remaining entries are not written if it is excluded from the above entries and seals. 2) The letter of delegation for the preparation of authentic deeds, which is the Defendant as the delegating. At the bottom of the date, the letter of delegation for the preparation of authentic deeds, which is the Defendant. The letter of delegation for the preparation of authentic deeds, stating that “The period of payment shall be paid within 10 days from the completion of the F.”

3) The purport of the entire pleadings and certificates of personal seal impression (the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 5-2, and Gap evidence No. 9-1) stated in the remarks column, which was issued by the principal as of October 30, 2017 and was issued by him/her, and which are stated in the Re

2. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Defendant is deemed to have delivered, on October 30, 2017, the said promissory note, power of attorney, certificate of personal seal impression, etc. to the Plaintiff with a view to promising the payment of KRW 10 million due to the purchase price under the instant sales contract. On the contrary, there is no evidence supporting the Defendant’s assertion that the above promissory note, etc. documents, such as the said promissory note, were written by borrowing KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff at the time of Namyang-ju, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid purchase price of KRW 10 million.

3. The defendant's judgment on the defense, etc. is the sales contract of this case.