1. The Defendant’s KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff, as well as 5% per annum from November 15, 2006 to September 22, 2015.

1. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 1-1 and No. 2, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract for the construction of a new building with the Defendant, who is the birth partner of the Plaintiff’s husband, and Seo-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant construction contract”), and paid KRW 1 million as the construction design cost on October 18, 2006, and KRW 20 million as the down payment on November 14, 2006, and the fact that the Plaintiff completed the construction work through a third party and completed the registration of preservation of ownership on August 28, 2007.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant did not pay the down payment and did not pay the down payment, and that the defendant is obligated to return the down payment, and that the defendant unilaterally performed the construction work through a third party without any notification to the defendant, and that the down payment was confiscated and reverted to the defendant.

3. We examine the judgment: ① the Defendant asserted that he concluded a subcontract with D to implement the instant construction contract, and paid the down payment of KRW 15 million. However, unlike the ordinary subcontract agreement, it is difficult to believe the Defendant’s assertion solely based on the above construction contract since the subcontract agreement (Evidence B No. 3) submitted by the Defendant does not include any basic matters, such as the size of buildings and the construction period, unlike the ordinary subcontract agreement; ② the Plaintiff appears to have had a considerable period from the conclusion of the instant construction contract to the conclusion of the construction contract again with a third party, but the Defendant did not commence preparation activities for the implementation of the instant construction contract, such as bringing in construction materials, even though it appears that there was a considerable period after the conclusion of the instant construction contract, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff did not start the construction work even if the Defendant had paid down the down payment from the Plaintiff, and that it was concluded through a third party.