1. The Defendant’s KRW 88,500,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from August 2, 2017 to August 16, 2018.

Basic Facts

A. The defendant is a company that engages in real estate sale and purchase business, sales agency business, and real estate consulting business.

B. D is an employee who sold a stolen land from the Defendant to receive 10% of the purchase price as a commission and worked on behalf of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff have been aware of each other at Dongdong for a long time.

C. Around July 19, 2017, D recommended the Plaintiff to purchase the land located in Gwangju City E from the Defendant. D

After examining the land to be purchased in the same way as D, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on July 20, 2017 with the content that 91 square meters of 16,139 square meters, which was 16,139 square meters prior to Gwangju City F. 8,50,000 square meters.

E. Of the 16,139 square meters prior to the foregoing Gwangju City, 11,002 square meters were divided on August 28, 2017 and became 11,002 square meters prior to G.

F. The Defendant completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer of 991/11,00 shares corresponding to the size of the land that the Plaintiff intended to purchase with respect to the said land, by transferring the ownership to the Plaintiff according to the above sales contract.

(g) The land, the provisional registration of which was completed (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”). The Plaintiff paid to the Defendant only KRW 17 million on July 19, 2017 as the down payment under the instant sales contract, and KRW 50 million on July 20, 2017, and KRW 710 on July 26, 201; and the same year as the intermediate payment on July 26, 201;

8.2. The payment was made in the aggregate of KRW 88.5 million under the pretext of the balance.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's assertion on the plaintiff's ground of claim as to the facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 6, witness D's testimony, and the overall purport of the pleading is that "the plaintiff's employee D purchased the land of this case because "the land was originally owned by H, is sold rapidly due to circumstances, and is deemed to be able to do so for a long time." The plaintiff's purchase of the land of this case was "the dry field" where no trees were planted at the time of the construction of the land at this time.

However, the Defendant’s registration of ownership is complete.