1. The Defendant’s KRW 2 million and the Plaintiff’s 5% per annum from June 21, 2010 to July 11, 2016.

1. The facts acknowledged are: (a) on March 15, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed with the Defendant to compensate for the amount of the down payment if the sales contract is revoked due to the Defendant’s nonperformance; (b) the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff concluded that the registration of ownership transfer is completed after completing the subdivision of the instant real estate, and the registration of ownership transfer is completed. (c) The Plaintiff agreed to compensate for the amount of the down payment if the sales contract is revoked due to the Defendant’s nonperformance. (d) The Plaintiff concluded that the registration of ownership transfer is completed after completing the subdivision of the instant real estate.

According to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the purchase price of KRW 20 million by June 20, 2010.

However, around September 201, when the Defendant did not transfer the instant real estate, all forest land including the instant real estate was loaned (the maximum bond amount of KRW 1.44 billion) as collateral, including the instant real estate, and there was no cadastral division or ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate until now.

On March 2013, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail to compensate for KRW 100 million, either whether or not the Plaintiff fulfilled its obligation to transfer ownership of the instant real estate under the instant sales contract.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, although the defendant has a legal obligation to register the transfer of ownership with respect to the real estate of this case to the plaintiff, it has not been performed for a considerable period of time. Rather, it has been practically difficult to register the transfer of ownership with loan secured by the real estate of this case, and it has been directly or indirectly indicated that the plaintiff's failure to comply with the plaintiff's promotion plan and failed to perform his obligation. Thus, the sales contract of this case is legitimate by the plaintiff's declaration of intention of cancellation filed by the lawsuit of this case.