1. The defendant shall pay 250 million won to the plaintiff and 5% per annum from January 1, 2020 to March 26, 2020, and the following.

Facts of recognition

In full view of the facts without dispute and evidence submitted by the plaintiff and the defendant and the purport of the whole arguments, the following facts can be acknowledged:

The defendant tried to stop the building on the land D at Jeju City and sell it in lots.

On December 31, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on December 31, 2018, “if the Plaintiff has invested 300 million won in the Defendant, the Defendant shall pay the principal 300 million won within December 30, 2019 after the completion of the building, and shall pay the principal of the investment and the return on profit at least 10% upon completion of the D Trading,” and the Plaintiff paid 300 million

After completing the second floor detached house on D land and obtaining approval for use on July 19, 2019, the defendant completed the registration for the preservation of ownership of the building on August 2, 2019.

The Defendant paid 30 million won to the Plaintiff on December 23, 2019 and 50 million won to the Plaintiff on December 31, 2019.

The assertion and judgment of the Plaintiff are required to return to the Plaintiff the principal of the investment by December 30, 2019, KRW 300 million, and KRW 30 million.

However, the defendant paid 30 million won as well as 50 million won as part of the principal of the investment, and thus, the remaining principal of the investment is 250 million won as well as 250 million won as of the following day after the due date for payment, and the statutory delay damages should be paid from January 1, 2020 to the day after full payment.

30 million won and 50 million won paid by the defendant alleged by the defendant is the return of the principal of investment, and the revenue can be settled by the building, so the due date for payment of the revenue has not yet arrived.

Therefore, 80 million won paid by the defendant shall be appropriated for the repayment of the principal of the investment and shall be paid only 220 million won of the remaining principal of the investment.

Judgment

There is no dispute that 50 million won out of the money paid by the Defendant was appropriated for the repayment of the principal of the investment.

The problem is whether 30 million won is the return of principal of investment or the payment of profits.

In doing so, according to the evidence No. 6, E, the representative of the defendant, paid to the plaintiff KRW 30 million, which is the principal of the investment, and it is essential to first send 30 million to the plaintiff the principal of the investment.

The principal shall also be the top;