1. The Defendant’s KRW 40,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from December 1, 2014 to January 27, 2016.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendant as to 103 Dong 2303, Busan Shipping Daegu Apartment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) owned by the Defendant, and paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 40 million. On November 12, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to cancel the instant sales contract and return the down payment amount of KRW 40 million. As such, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is liable to pay the down payment of KRW 40 million and delay damages from December 1, 2014, which is the date of termination of the agreement.

B. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff unilaterally reversed the sales contract of this case, the down payment under the sales contract of this case belongs to the defendant who is the seller, and that the contract deposit of this case suffers damage more than the down payment.

2. In full view of each of the entries and arguments in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number), the defendant proposed the instant sales contract to the plaintiff when financial circumstances were difficult, and the plaintiff actively led the conclusion of the instant sales contract by marking out the purchase of the above apartment due to financial circumstances, etc., such as the defendant's intention to find out the loan, etc., and the instant sales contract to the extent that the loan is not sexually formed is not any longer, and the contract is actually terminated, and the plaintiff requested the defendant to return the down payment of KRW 40 million around November 12, 2014. The defendant sold the above apartment to the plaintiff on December 6, 2014, on the premise that the time was delayed, and the relation between Won and the defendant, and the conclusion and termination of the instant sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, it is reasonable to deem that the above contract was returned to the plaintiff around 14,201, on the premise that the defendant returned the down payment to the plaintiff on December 6, 2014.