1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of neighboring land under the Daejeon District Court’s receipt of No. 19789 on October 20, 2009, as to the land of this case, which was owned by Gosung-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun (hereinafter “instant land”). On June 4, 2010, the Plaintiff had the auction of real estate for the instant land conducted on the ground of voluntary decision to commence the auction (D) of this Court.

On August 12, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract for the instant land with the Defendant as the purchase price of KRW 250 million between the Defendant and the Defendant, with the introduction of E on August 12, 2010. In the process of entering into a sales contract for the instant land, the Plaintiff, upon withdrawal of the instant voluntary auction, entered into an agreement with the Defendant on the condition that the Defendant would receive a loan from the bank and pay KRW 25 million to the Plaintiff, and withdrawn the said voluntary auction.

However, through F on August 13, 2010, the Defendant deposited only KRW 17 million into the Plaintiff’s wife G account, but did not pay the remainder of KRW 8 million.

Therefore, the defendant should pay 8 million won and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

2. The key issue of the instant case is whether, as alleged by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant agreed to obtain a loan from the bank and to provide the Plaintiff with KRW 25 million (not exceeding KRW 17 million).

The witness E’s testimony that seems consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion is believed in light of the relationship between the witness and the Defendant, the interest of the witness in the instant case, the details of testimony, and the past fact that the witness had the power to belong to the sales price in the sales contract delegated by the Defendant.

There is no other proof by the plaintiff to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise of the existence of the agreement as alleged by the plaintiff is rejected.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.