1. Between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are one story of the Gyeonggicheon-gun C, 413 square meters, and of the ground reinforced concrete structure.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant was a corporation established for the purpose of the development of electric power resource houses and the sale of electric power resource houses, and was engaged in the development and sale of electric power resource houses in the business group D of Gyeonggicheon-gun.

B. (1) On March 18, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant’s intra-company director E account.

At the time of Sheshed, the Plaintiff, along with the husband of F (E), sent money to the scene after checking the completion of the structural works, as above.

C. (1) On July 6, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on a model house with respect to the sale price of KRW 187,60,00,000, down payment of KRW 26,80,000, the remainder of KRW 160,80,000, and the date of designation of occupancy on September 30, 2016, and the sale price was to be paid to the account designated by the Defendant.

G (H's punishment), the actual representative director of the defendant, as well as F, was present at the Doll.

Article 10,000,000 won which was remitted on March 18, 2015 to the Plaintiff was delivered to the Plaintiff a written confirmation that “the previous payment of KRW 10,000,000 shall be refunded at the time of loan.”

x) Accordingly, the Plaintiff transferred 26,80,000 won of down payment on the sales contract on July 7, 2016 to the Defendant account.

Since January 12, 2017, the Plaintiff additionally paid or remitted KRW 150,800,000 to F on May 30, 2017, and KRW 20,000,000 to E account on May 30, 2017, and KRW 20,000,000 to F on June 13, 2017, and KRW 90,000,000 to the Defendant account on June 14, 2017, and ⑤ KRW 80,000,000 to the Defendant account on November 24, 2017.

【Evidence A】 Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, the entire purport of the pleading

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that 10,000,000 won, which was remitted to the E account on March 18, 2015, should be deemed as part of the parcelling-out price, and that 10,000,000 won, based on the parcelling-out contract, does not exist any longer. The Defendant asserts that the said money cannot be deemed as the payment of the parcelling-out price.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion of determination is 10,000. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that F on behalf of the Defendant or with the Defendant’s authority delegated.