1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 27, 2015 to the date of full payment.

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. On December 21, 2007, the Plaintiff invested KRW 200 million between the Defendant and C (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”) and invested KRW 300 million by the Defendant, etc., and agreed to purchase E 401 and 501, which are located in D at the beginning of Si/Gu, and acquire business rights in the above building and operate a partnership business. The Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million out of the investment amount to be borne by the Defendant, etc., and incurred damages in the course of raising funds for purchase.

B. On January 21, 2008, the Defendant: (a) concluded a sales contract with an officer of Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, an officer of the Korea National Housing Corporation (hereinafter “instant shopping district”) on F and part of G (hereinafter “instant shopping district”); and (b) entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); (c) the Defendant, in lieu of the Plaintiff’s payment of the amount of damages that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff; and (d) agreed to complete the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the said commercial district by acquiring the said commercial district from H and I, the first buyer of the instant commercial district, who was the Plaintiff.

C. However, since the obligation of the Defendant to transfer ownership according to the instant sales contract is impossible, the Plaintiff’s delivery of a copy of the instant complaint to cancel the said sales contract, and the Defendant, as restitution to the Plaintiff, is obliged to return the purchase price of KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff.

2. Nos. 1 and 2, and 4 (a business contract, and a stamp image after the defendant's name are affixed to seals of the defendant) are presumed to be the authenticity of the entire document, since there is no dispute between the parties that the stamp image after the defendant's name is affixed to the seals of the defendant. The defendant, although there is no defense to the effect that the document was forged by a third party, there is no evidence to acknowledge it), and considering the whole purport of the pleading as a whole, the plaintiff, the defendant, etc., jointly invest in funds around December 207, and purchase Nos. 401 and 501 on the D ground of early 20