1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Facts of recognition

On December 2010, the Plaintiff contracted the construction of reinforced concrete among the new construction works of Echeon-si C Apartment (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant, and completed the construction by July 30, 201.

On August 20, 2013, the Defendant: (a) paid to the Plaintiff the remaining construction cost of KRW 115,00,000 within three months after the completion and approval for the use of the instant building; and (b) made up a payment note to the effect that the said apartment unit D will be repaid as a substitute in the event of default (hereinafter “each of the instant notes”).

(Reasons for recognition) Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings.

Plaintiff’s assertion

The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 115,00,000 and the delay damages therefor, in accordance with the letter of the instant case.

Judgment

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant shall pay the construction cost on each of the instant notes to the plaintiff.

However, according to the purport of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s written evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings, it is recognized that, on August 24, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a payment contract with the Plaintiff to transfer the E site No. 61 square meters and the F. 855 square meters (hereinafter “each land of this case”) owned by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as payment in lieu of the construction cost, and that at the time of the conclusion of the said contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to treat the Plaintiff as the payment in lieu of the payment in lieu of the payment in kind. Therefore, it is determined that the Plaintiff’

In this regard, the Plaintiff asserted that the market price of each land of this case at the time of the payment contract in substitutes was KRW 110 million, and that the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security established on each land of this case was KRW 100 million. The Plaintiff concluded a payment in substitutes without knowing such circumstances, and thus, the validity of the said contract cannot be recognized.

This argument is concluded by mistake or deception.