1. The Defendant: 22,471,843 won to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 21, 2013 to May 20, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 18, 2007, the District Residents Development Committee and the Plaintiff entered into an enforcement agency service contract (the instant contract) on which the Plaintiff will be responsible for implementing and consulting the residential environment improvement project in the B district, and the residents were to pay the price of the State and public land that the Plaintiff would have become unfit for implementing the project.

B. On May 16, 2008, the Defendant, a resident of the district B, entered into a contract to purchase the share of land C and D land from the State in Seodaemun-gu Seoul on May 16, 2008 under the instant contract. The Plaintiff paid KRW 43,680,270 as the down payment and indemnity for each of the above lands on the same day, but was refunded KRW 2,840,750 to the amount overpaid

However, the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder of the land that was unpaid until July 5, 2008, which was the due date for payment. On February 27, 2009, the District Residents Development Committee notified that the instant contract was terminated as of March 13, 2009 on the ground of the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the remainder.

C. On the other hand, the Defendant urged the payment of the remainder of the land in arrears and paid the remainder amount of KRW 291,458,440 on February 2, 2010. On December 20, 2013, the Defendant paid the overdue interest of KRW 66,408,380 on December 20, 2013.

In this regard, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff claiming damages for nonperformance of the above obligation to pay the remainder, and the judgment against the Plaintiff to pay damages for damages for KRW 28,109,367 (the overdue interest accrued until the day before the termination of the instant contract out of KRW 66,408,380 paid by the Defendant) and damages for delay of KRW 5% per annum from December 20, 2013 to March 31, 2016 and KRW 20% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

(The District Court Decision 2015Na51433 Decided March 31, 2016). The grounds for recognition are: The facts without dispute, Gap 2, five-1, 2, Gap 6, 7, Gap 14-1, 2, and Eul 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the fact that the obligation to return the amount of deposit is recognized, the Defendant is to restore the said amount to its original state upon the termination of the instant contract.