1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on August 20, 2013, with the content that the Defendant purchased from the Plaintiff the land of Kimpo-si 604 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and that the purchase price shall be KRW 260 million.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant sales contract”), which is based on the said sales contract, B.

At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff’s instant land was registered for establishment of a collateral of KRW 156 million with the obligee FF association, the obligor G (the Plaintiff’s mother), the maximum debt amount, and the maximum debt amount.

C. On October 18, 2013, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant land under the receipt of No. 69596 on October 18, 2013.

On October 29, 2013, the Defendant subrogated for the debtor in the amount of KRW 121,925,916, which is the secured debt of the foregoing right to collateral security, and cancelled the registration of establishment near the mortgage.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence 14-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the purchase price of KRW 160 million (the secured debt amount established on the land of this case shall be calculated as KRW 100 million and deducted therefrom) based on the sales contract of this case as the plaintiff seeks, in the absence of special circumstances.

3. Determination as to whether there is false conspiracy or false representation

A. The summary of the defendant's assertion is that the defendant's acceptance of 100 million won (the amount of secured debt after the contract is confirmed to be 121,925,916 and the defendant subrogated for it) of the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on the land of this case shall be substituted for the payment of the purchase price (the defendant claims that it constitutes an onerous donation).