1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 23,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 21, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

Basic Facts

A. On October 28, 198, the Plaintiff completed the report of marriage with C on October 28, 198. On August 6, 2012, the Plaintiff and C were sentenced to divorce ( Daejeon Family Court 201dhap477), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on March 2013.

The defendant was the mother of C, and the plaintiff was the mother of C.

B. The Plaintiff was residing on the ground of the Seo-gu Daejeon District, Seo-gu, Daejeon, and the daily price of the above land was expropriated as a development project E. As part of the compensation, the Plaintiff acquired the right to sell the land for countermeasures against life (hereinafter “instant right to sell”).

C. Around December 2006, the Defendant disposed of the pre-sale right under the premise that the Defendant would acquire the right to sell the land for livelihood countermeasures in the future, and received KRW 23 million from the price around December 20, 2006.

However, since then, the defendant could not acquire the right to sell the above land for livelihood countermeasures.

Around May 2007, the Defendant transferred the Plaintiff’s right to sell the instant case to the said other party in lieu of the right to sell the said case.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul's evidence Nos. 2 and 6, witness F's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant would sell the plaintiff's right of sale in lieu of the plaintiff's right of sale in this case and that the plaintiff consented to it. The plaintiff sought payment of KRW 23 million and its delay damages.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff donated the right to sell this case to the defendant.

Judgment

In full view of the statement of No. 4, witness F’s testimony and the whole purport of the argument of the plaintiff as a result of the examination of the plaintiff himself, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff entrusted the sale and purchase of the sales right of this case to the defendant around May 2007, and against this, the defendant’s examination result is difficult to believe in light of the specific contents of the statement, and the statement of No. 1-2, No. 3-6, and No. 1-1, No. 2,