The defendant's KRW 103,550,000 to the plaintiff and its related KRW 6% per annum from November 1, 2018 to May 16, 2019.

1.1. Basic Facts

A. The parties concerned are the business implementer who newly built and sold the 14-dong 998 apartment units in Kimhae-si (hereinafter “the apartment unit of this case”). The defendant is the purchaser of the apartment of this case.

B. On June 17, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into the sales contract and options construction contract of the instant apartment with D on June 17, 2015, the sales contract and the construction contract for balcony expansion options contract with the sales price of KRW 318,500,000 for the instant apartment among the apartment units (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with D (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the sales contract and the construction price of KRW 11,90,000 for the instant apartment units (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

(2) According to the sales contract in this case, the sales contract in this case provides that F shall pay the remainder of the sales price of KRW 91,650,00 and the total of KRW 11,900,000 for options and the total of KRW 11,550,000 for options until the expiration date of the occupancy designation period, and if this is in arrears, it shall pay the following damages for delay: (a) from the expiration date of the occupancy designation period to the expiration date of 31 to 30:0 per annum from the expiration date of the occupancy designation period to the expiration date of 91 to 180; (b) from the expiration date of the occupancy designation period to the expiration date of 91 to 90 per annum; and (c) from the expiration date of the occupancy designation period to the expiration date of 181 to August 27, 2015, the sale of the status of the buyer to the Defendant by obtaining the Plaintiff’s consent.

C. The Plaintiff completed a pre-use inspection on the instant apartment, and notified the Defendant of the period of designation of occupancy from July 31, 2018 to October 31, 2018 that the remainder, etc. of the sale price should be paid in full and at the same time move into an apartment. However, the Defendant refused to implement the pre-sale inspection on the instant apartment due to the Plaintiff’s voluntary change in design, etc., which led to the decline in the value of the apartment.

Article 19 of the contract for the sale of this case is defined as follows.