1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from January 26, 2018 to the day of complete payment.

Facts of recognition

On March 18, 2016, the Defendant agreed to the Plaintiff as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant arrangement”). The above principal agrees to the obligee A as follows:

Total amount of payment: the amount agreed on the first cash payment of KRW 120 million: KRW 80 million, whichever is 65 million out of the total amount of KRW 80 million, shall be paid by C by means of a loan and implementation of apartment owned by oneself as of March 18, 2016.

The balance of KRW 15 million shall be paid within 15 days after the registration of the withdrawal of the auction.

A The creditor shall set up a right to collateral security for KRW 40 million after receiving KRW 15 million to B on the above apartment.

The remaining KRW 40 million, excluding KRW 80,000,000 for the first cash payment agreement out of the total amount of KRW 120,000,000, shall be payable by agreement of interested parties D, E, and F.

Pursuant to the instant agreement, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 65 million on March 29, 2016, and KRW 15 million on April 25, 2016, respectively.

[Grounds for recognition] According to the above facts as to Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings, about 10 years and 10 months have passed since the date of the agreement of this case until the date of the closure of pleadings of this case. It is reasonable to deem that the payment period of the remainder of the agreement of this case 40 million won has arrived, and the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff KRW 40 million, except in extenuating circumstances.

The defendant's assertion was based on a false notarial deed obtained by deceiving D et al. as an agent of the defendant, and the compulsory auction procedure for the real estate owned by the defendant was commenced, and the agreement of this case was not valid since it was made to withdraw the above auction without knowing the above deception, and even if the plaintiff returned the party unit list, which was the cause of the contract of this case, to D, and received return KRW 100 million from D, the defendant did not have a duty to pay the contract of this case.