1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 14, 1992, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendant for the purchase price of KRW 220 million with respect to the land of this case (hereinafter “instant land”). The down payment of KRW 20 million is KRW 100,000,000,000 for a contract, and the remainder of KRW 100,000,000,000 for an intermediate payment of KRW 10,000,000 for a contract shall be paid preferentially from the funds disbursed as housing funds within 30 days from the date the construction permission is granted, and where D construction permission is not granted on the instant land, this contract shall be null and void (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. On April 14, 1992, the Plaintiff paid KRW 20 million to the Defendant, and KRW 5 million on September 2, 1992, respectively.

C. On June 15, 2004, the Defendant drafted and ordered the Plaintiff a letter of undertaking with the following content (hereinafter “instant letter of undertaking”).

I have confirmed that the content of the copy of the instant sales contract with the Plaintiff attached thereto is valid, provided that:

1. The real estate trade balance shall be adjusted and paid;

2. The real estate sale price shall be set at the current market price rather than at the time of the preparation of the attached sales contract, and shall be increased by KRW 130 million.

On July 9, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a new E-construction contract on the land of this case with the tugboat industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “E-construction contract”), and the Defendant entered the said contract in the said written contract (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”).

E. The instant land was divided into the land of this case into the land of Ischeon-si 531 square meters, F large 579 square meters, G large 591 square meters, H large 567 square meters, I large 314 square meters, and J large 72 square meters, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, and Gap evidence No. 16 [Evidence No. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 4, and 7], considering the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant's seal No. 11, 1991 (hereinafter "one seal").

(2) On September 22, 1992, after the seal imprint was registered, another seal (hereinafter “2 seal”)

The facts reported to be changed, and the seals on the letter of undertaking of this case are the same.