1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 200,000,000 as well as 20% per annum from March 8, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On July 2009, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 230,000,000 to C, and C did not repay the Plaintiff despite the Plaintiff’s continuous demand for performance. The Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against C around the end of December 2010.

On February 9, 2011, the plaintiff, C, and C, the defendant, who is the c, agreed to take over the obligation of C with respect to the plaintiff at KRW 500,000,000, and the defendant agreed to discharge the obligation of C from liability.

Therefore, the Defendant, as an explicit partial claim to the Plaintiff, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 200,000,000 among the above KRW 500,000,000 and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff sought reimbursement of KRW 200,00,000,00 as the expenses necessary for such false appraisal, with knowledge of the fact that the actual land appraisal does not exceed KRW 3 billion, for the purpose of obtaining a large amount of loans from financial institutions after receiving an appraisal of the price above the above land, the Plaintiff paid KRW 200,000,00 as the expenses necessary for such false appraisal.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 200,000 to C constitutes illegal consideration. As such, the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 200,000 constitutes illegal consideration, the Plaintiff is not entitled to seek the return thereof, and the agreement to return it constitutes a category of claim for the return of illegal consideration, and is therefore null and void. As such, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C agreed on February 9, 201 to accept the obligation of the Plaintiff at KRW 500,000,00, and the Defendant agreed to accept it

Even if the plaintiff can not seek performance from the defendant.

2. Determination

A. The facts following the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the contents of Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 6-1, Gap evidence 7-1, 5, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3, and the whole purport of the arguments.

(1) The Plaintiff is collectively named as “land subject to appraisal of this case” other than Seoul Mapo-gu land.