1. The Defendant amounting to KRW 75 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from February 1, 2013 to December 18, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 5, 2009, the Plaintiff purchased from the Defendant the livestock farming facilities (four oon d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d g

At the time, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a special agreement with the Plaintiff that “the management and cultivation of farmland and facilities after the settlement of the remaining amount shall be the Defendant, and if the Plaintiff is unable to be supplied with the above living countermeasure site, the Defendant would return the said purchase price to the Plaintiff KRW 80 million.”

B. The Plaintiff paid to the Defendant KRW 20 million on September 6, 2009, KRW 30 million on November of the same month, and KRW 30 million on September 19 of the same month.

(c) Persons to be supplied with sites for livelihood countermeasures within the relevant housing site district and the standards for supply shall be as specified in the attached Form;

However, until January 2013, 2013, the Plaintiff was not selected as a person to be supplied with a cost-of-living site from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 7, 10-1 through 3, witness F testimony, each fact inquiry result of this court's fact inquiry into the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, the plaintiff was confirmed to be unable to be supplied with the above living countermeasure site around January 201, 2013, which is the final point of time for selecting a person to be supplied with a living countermeasure site. Thus, the defendant shall make a duplicate of the complaint of this case from February 1, 2013, which is the day following the day when it becomes final that the plaintiff was unable to be supplied with the purchase price of KRW 75 million, excluding the remaining purchase price of KRW 5 million, which is the person who was returned to the plaintiff according to the return agreement under the above sales contract.