1. The Defendant paid KRW 58,396,80 to the Plaintiff KRW 50% per annum from May 9, 2018 to July 3, 2018.

. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff owned 559 square meters of land for a factory in Seo-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant land”) incorporated within the project site for the land readjustment project of Incheon. However, under the status that the instant land was designated as the land scheduled for substitution (Eb block 100 square meters: 503.2 square meters of a right area, 436 square meters of a fixed area, 67.2 square meters of a shortage area) and on January 17, 2012, the Plaintiff indicated the following sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) between the Defendant and the Defendant on January 17, 2012: The location of the real estate: The land site of Seo-gu Incheon Ebro 10 square meters of a substitute area: 436.2 square meters of a substitute area:

2. Sales proceeds: KRW 379,000,000, down payment of KRW 80 million shall be paid at the time of the contract and any balance of KRW 299,00,000 shall be paid on March 8, 2012.

*Special Agreement - This sale contract is a substitute lot area (436.2 square meters).

- This sales contract excludes buildings of old land (D).

was concluded.

B. The Defendant paid the purchase price to the Plaintiff, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land on March 8, 2012.

C. On the other hand, on May 11, 2018, the instant land was replaced with F. 436 square meters in Seo-gu Incheon, Incheon. On May 9, 2018, the Defendant received 58,396,800 won (i.e., 67.2 square meters x unit price of 869,000 won) from the Construction Headquarters of Incheon City on May 9, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, testimony of witness G and purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the plaintiff did not return to the plaintiff, the legitimate right holder of the liquidation money, after receiving the liquidation money in violation of the agreement, although the parties specified the subject matter of sale as the substitute lot area and agreed to reserve the right to the shortage area to the plaintiff.

The defendant only explained that 436.2 square meters of the land of this case is subject to replotting at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract of this case.