1. The Defendant’s KRW 35,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from December 20, 2017 to November 9, 2018, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is an organization established to facilitate the project of a regional housing association under the Housing Act on Class I district unit planning zone of 9,175 square meters in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant project”), thereby protecting the rights and interests of its members, and promoting the stability of its members’ residential life.

B. On January 17, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a subscription agreement (hereinafter “instant contract”) with respect to the amount of KRW 334,00,000 (the contract amounting to KRW 35,000,000, intermediate payment of KRW 265,600,000, and the remainder amount of KRW 33,40,000) with respect to the association apartment D’s exclusive use area, which is to be constructed pursuant to the instant project with the Defendant.

C. On January 31, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant as the instant down payment, and KRW 35,000,000 in total, on May 18, 2016.

On January 31, 2016, the Defendant, with respect to the instant contract, prepared and executed the following commitments (hereinafter “instant commitments”) with respect to the Plaintiff:

In relation to the recruitment of members of “E apartment” promoted by the Gyeonggi-do Kimpo-si Housing Association (tentatively referred to as “E apartment”), the down payment already paid shall be refunded until February 19, 2016 when the district unit plan is not received by February 19, 2016.

E. On December 19, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the return of the instant down payment on the ground that the “ receipt of the district unit plan” under the instant promise did not exist.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The condition under the Plaintiff’s assertion should not be reduced or interpreted simply as “act of receiving resident proposal,” and as such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the down payment of KRW 35,000,000 and damages for delay.

B. On February 19, 2016, the Defendant’s assertion that he/she received a resident’s proposal to modify a district unit plan is in accordance with the instant commitment.