1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 20,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from May 27, 2015 to November 26, 2015; and (b) the Plaintiff.

1. In fact that there is no dispute, the instant real estate is the real estate owned by the defendant who completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the defendant due to sale around December 30, 209.

2. Determination as to the claim

A. On December 2014, the Plaintiff’s assertion and the gist of the claim were to purchase the instant real estate as KRW 650 million from the Defendant via E, who works for CD real estate located in the Gu and the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from the Defendant at KRW 650 million. On the 24th of the same month, the Plaintiff received the Defendant’s account through the above E, and transferred the instant real estate into the said account the down payment amount to KRW 20 million. Accordingly, the Defendant, who expressed the intention of cancellation of the instant contract, is primarily liable to pay the Plaintiff the down payment of KRW 20 million paid by the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 565(1) of the Civil Act, as well as damages for delay. In addition, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the ownership transfer registration procedure for the instant real estate.

B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the principal contract on the instant real estate was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no clear evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Even if a provisional contract is concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the Plaintiff would cover part of the down payment if the future contract is concluded, the provisional contract amount is the amount to be paid on the premise that the contract would be returned if the contract was not concluded. Unless there is any other evidence on the fact that there is a special agreement to pay the penalty or the down payment, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the double of the provisional contract amount even if the contract was not concluded on the grounds of the Defendant’s fault.

Therefore, the plaintiff's conjunctive claim is not accepted. However, on December 24, 2014, the plaintiff transferred 20 million won to the defendant's account.