1. As to KRW 37,561,830 and KRW 36,670,00 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the year from March 13, 2018 to March 22, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As to the new construction of a building on the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and D ground, the Plaintiff transferred total of KRW 100,000,000,000 to the Defendant on September 26, 2017, including KRW 5,000,000, and KRW 95,000,000 on October 16, 2017.

B. The defendant used the above money to construct a new building on the land E in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

C. On November 2, 2017, the Plaintiff returned KRW 13,300,000 from the Defendant, and agreed to refund KRW 86,670,000, the remainder, excluding KRW 13,300,000, out of the said money, from the Defendant until November 6, 2017 (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

On March 12, 2018, the Defendant returned KRW 15,000,00 to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In the event of default of a monetary obligation, the principal claim and damages for delay arising from the principal claim are separate objects of lawsuit. On the other hand, Article 479 of the Civil Act is stipulated in the order of appropriation for performance to the principal, and Article 476 of the Civil Act as to the appropriation for performance is not applicable mutatis mutandis. Therefore, in principle, the expenses, interest, and principal claim should be appropriated in the order of appropriation, and even in the case of the debtor and the creditor, the order of appropriation can not be designated unilaterally differently from

However, if there is a special agreement between the parties or if it appears that the other party has not raised any objection to the unilateral designation of the parties without delay and that the implied agreement has been reached, the order of appropriation, unlike the order of appropriation, may be recognized.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da12399 Decided June 11, 2009). B.

In light of the above legal principles, according to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay KRW 15,00,000 to the principal of the instant agreement, which was received from the Defendant on March 12, 2018.