1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from May 27, 2018 to May 31, 2019.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the owner of the instant real estate. On May 7, 2015, the Gwangju District Court’s Netcheon Branch of the Jeju District Court, the provisional registration right holder, the Plaintiff on May 7, 2015, the grounds for registration, the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership of the instant real estate, was completed on May 7, 2015.

(hereinafter “Provisional Registration of this case”). (b)

Meanwhile, on May 19, 2015, the Plaintiff KRW 15 million to the Defendant (transfer to the Defendant’s NHF Bank Account D in the name of NHF Bank C),

5. 5 million won (transfer to the new bank account E in the name of C) was transferred, respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant remittance”), which was remitted in two equal installments, 20 million won (hereinafter referred to as “instant remittance”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry in Gap 1, 2, and Eul 1 and 13 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. Plaintiff 1) The Plaintiff did not purchase the instant real estate, and did not pay the sales price, and the said real estate and the instant remittance are irrelevant. 2) The Defendant should pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the instant remittance and the damages for delay.

In the first place, the remittance of this case requested that the Defendant “the Defendant’s father and wife C residing in Japan need to pay KRW 60,000,000,000 to the Defendant as soon as possible if it was lent to the Defendant,” and without the due date and interest agreement, it is the money lent to the Defendant by transferring it to the account in the name of C designated by the Defendant without the due date and interest agreement.

Preliminaryly, even though the remittance of this case was the money to be used by the Defendant himself, the Defendant made a false statement to the Plaintiff as if he borrowed money from the Defendant’s wife, and received the said remittance from the Plaintiff, thereby incurring damages equivalent to the amount of the remittance of this case to the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant, around May 7, 2015, intended to sell the instant real estate to the Plaintiff in the purchase price of KRW 20 million (hereinafter “instant sale”).

(b).