1. The Defendant’s KRW 122 million with respect to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from May 9, 2015 to June 20, 2018, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 4, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to sell the apartment house D (hereinafter “instant apartment”) to the Defendant in the amount of KRW 370 million in price.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to accept KRW 248,00,000,000 as collateral in lieu of the payment of the purchase price, which was established on the apartment of the instant apartment, and to fully exchange the remainder until May 8, 2015.

B. On May 8, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant apartment.

The Defendant assumed the obligation of KRW 248 million in lieu of the payment of the purchase price on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remaining amount of KRW 122 million out of the purchase price of the apartment of this case (i.e., KRW 370 million - KRW 248 million) and delay damages.

B. (1) The defendant asserted that he paid KRW 1220 million in the purchase price of the apartment of this case to the plaintiff's account.

(B) Even if the Defendant’s response to an order to submit financial transaction information requested, it is not confirmed that the payment of the purchase price claimed by the Defendant is made.

Unless a financial transaction fact alleged by the Defendant is recognized as a payment method, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was actually paid the purchase price only under the sales contract (Evidence A No. 2) written in hand under the remainder column.

Defendant’s defense is without merit.

(2) The defendant asserts that he agreed to offset his claim for loans of KRW 200 million against the plaintiff's fraudulent E against the claim for the purchase price of the apartment of this case.

(B) The defendant asserted that he paid the purchase price of the apartment of this case as seen earlier at the second date for pleading, and raised the above offset defense.