1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) On December 5, 2012, the Defendant is the Korea Land and Housing Corporation and the Chang-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City Land and Housing Corporation C 411 Dong 1202 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

(2) According to the above sales contract, the apartment sales contract of this case was concluded. (2) Under the above sales contract, the total sales price of the apartment of this case is KRW 252,522,00 ( separate contract price of KRW 5,930,000), the contract deposit of KRW 30 million shall be KRW 25 million until June 3, 2013, and the second intermediate payment of KRW 25 million until December 1, 2013, and the third intermediate payment of KRW 25 million until June 2, 2014, KRW 25 million shall be paid until December 1, 2014, respectively, and KRW 4,25 million shall be paid until December 1, 2014, KRW 47,522,000 shall be paid at the time of occupancy designation, and KRW 75 million shall be paid at the time of occupancy, and the Korea Land and Housing Corporation shall acquire the loan.

B. On December 5, 2012, KRW 30 million of the sales price of the instant apartment, and KRW 130 million of the intermediate payment and the remainder on March 15, 2013, some of KRW 170,190,540 of the intermediate payment and the remainder were paid to the respective Korea Land and Housing Corporation with the Plaintiff’s funds, and KRW 170,190,540 of the advance payment was recognized as the amount of receipt.

C. Meanwhile, according to the instant apartment sales guidance, the resale is prohibited for one year from the date when the first housing supply contract can be concluded ( December 5, 2012).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 7, 12, 13, 14, and 18, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are siblings, and around 2010, the Defendant lent KRW 130 million to the Defendant, on the ground that “If the Plaintiff lent the apartment sale price of the instant apartment, it would have been sold the instant apartment after the lapse of the one-year prohibition period of resale. If it is impossible to repay or resell the sales price, it would have to acquire the sales price of the instant apartment.” If it is impossible to sell or resell the sales price, it would have to transfer the sales price of the instant apartment.”

However, since the defendant did not pay the money to the plaintiff and did not transfer the right to sell the apartment of this case, the above agreement is around the defendant.