1. Defendant B received KRW 45,099,276 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and simultaneously attached to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. The fact of recognition (1) is that the Plaintiff (the counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) as a party is an executor who sold the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Urban Residential Housing (hereinafter referred to as the “instant multi-family housing”), and the Defendant B is the lessee who entered into a lease contract with the Defendant B.

(2) (A) On December 8, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant B to sell and supply the instant apartment housing E in the purchase price of KRW 182 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and agreed to pay KRW 18.2 million for the intermediate payment, KRW 72.8 million on January 15, 2015, and KRW 18.2 million on April 15, 2015, the intermediate payment of KRW 18.2 million on July 15, 2015, and the intermediate payment of KRW 18.2 million on April 15, 2015, as well as the remainder payment of KRW 54.6 million on July 15, 2015, respectively.

(B) According to the instant sales contract, Defendant B paid to the Plaintiff KRW 18.2 million on December 8, 2014, and KRW 18.2 million on April 23, 2015, respectively, as part of the intermediate payment. On January 29, 2016, Defendant B additionally paid KRW 60 million to the Plaintiff.

(C) Defendant B did not pay to the Plaintiff the remainder amount of KRW 85.6 million under the instant sales contract.

(3) After the Plaintiff urged Defendant B to pay the sales contract on April 7, 2016, the Plaintiff notified Defendant B of the cancellation of the instant sales contract on May 11, 2016, and notified Defendant B of his/her intention to cancel the instant sales contract on the same ground.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts (Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

B. According to the facts of the above recognition, the sales contract of this case was lawfully rescinded by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to cancel the sales contract of this case due to delay in the performance of the obligation to pay the remaining sale price of Defendant B, and the Defendant B is obligated to return from the Plaintiff.