1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 30,820,000 as well as 6% per annum from April 13, 2019 to September 9, 2020 and from the next day.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 10, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the sale of a hotel room established in Gangseo-si C branch, and important matters are as follows:

Subject matter: Gangnam-si Cil-si, D hotel E contracting party - Seller: “A” corporation (Defendant) - Trustor - Trustor 1: “B”: F Co., Ltd. - Purchasers “B”: “B”: The amount and method of payment of the Plaintiff’s supply - Total supply amount of KRW 308,200,000 - intermediate payment of KRW 30,820,000 - Part payment of KRW 184,920,000 (6 times each of KRW 30,820,000) - The remainder of KRW 92,460,000 (the date of the designation of remainder payment)

B. The Plaintiff paid the down payment of KRW 30,820,000 to the Defendant account by June 12, 2017 under the contract.

[In the absence of any dispute, the purport of Gap 1, 5, and all pleadings]

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The primary Defendant agreed to receive loans from the financial institution under the name of the Plaintiff on the responsibility of the Defendant when the Plaintiff pays only down payment.

However, financial institutions linked to the defendant were refused to grant loans on the ground that the plaintiff's age exceeded 90 years.

Although the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the intermediate payment is due to the Defendant’s breach of the agreement, the Defendant made clear the intent to perform the contract by notifying the Plaintiff of the rescission of the contract due to the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the intermediate payment. Therefore, the Plaintiff cancels the contract due to the Defendant’

The Defendant shall restore the down payment to the original state, pay the amount equivalent to the down payment to the penalty, and pay the amount equivalent to the down payment, and as long as the contract was performed, the Plaintiff unilaterally cancelled the value-added tax after issuing a tax invoice in advance and unilaterally cancelled the tax invoice, thereby causing the Plaintiff to incur losses to impose the additional dues of KRW 4,282,052 on the Plaintiff due to the delay in refund. As such,

(65,924,052 = 30,820,000 ¡¿ 24,284,052) or the defendant.