1. Of the monetary claims in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the first instance court’s ruling “No. 15, 2010,” which read “No. 15, 2010,” which read “No. 15, 2010,” which read “No. 3, 2012,” which read “No. 16, 2012,” is changed to “No. 16, 2012.” In addition to adding the following judgments, it is identical to the reasons for the first instance court’s ruling; and (b) thus, it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The defendant's assertion did not receive KRW 25,00,000,000 from the plaintiff as to the share in the real estate of this case. The defendant paid KRW 1,628,740 on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant's automatic claim is offset against the plaintiff's claim for return of unjust enrichment of this case against the defendant.

B. If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statements in the evidence Nos. 2 and 6, which set-off claim against the purchase price claim, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 25,000,000 as a check with face value of KRW 30,000 on March 9, 2009.

Therefore, the offset defense against the Defendant’s claim for the purchase price against the Plaintiff is without merit.

C. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding the entry of evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings to the claim for return of unjust enrichment arising from substitute payment, including property tax, etc., to the automatic claim, are the following circumstances, i.e., the original and the Defendant, upon entering into the instant sales contract, agreed to comply with the provisions of the Local Tax Act (Article 4 of the sales contract and Article 107(1) of the Local Tax Act, and Article 114 of the Local Tax Act provides that a person who actually owns property as of June 1 of each year is liable to pay property tax.

“The de facto owner”, which is the taxpayer for property tax as determined by this provision, is the substantial ownership of the property regardless of whether it is registered as the owner on the public register.