1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid additionally shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for this court’s explanation in this part of the basic facts is as follows: (a) the primary defendant is appointed as “Defendant”; and (b) the “preliminary defendant” is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the “preliminary defendant” is appointed as “D Co., Ltd.”

2. The name of the purchaser of each of the instant sales contracts alleged by the Plaintiff is D Co., Ltd. operated by the Defendant, but the substantive party is the Defendant.

The Plaintiff received KRW 375 million on May 29, 2008, from among the purchase price of the instant E apartment, on May 29, 2008. Of the purchase price of KRW 450 million, the Plaintiff received KRW 480 million on July 11, 2008, and paid KRW 275 million on July 11, 2008.

However, in a lawsuit for repayment of loans 2012Gahap323 brought by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, the Defendant offsets the loan claim against the Plaintiff with the loan claim of KRW 150 million, which is claimed by the Defendant as the automatic claim, and thus, the remaining claim for the remainder of the sale price is KRW 125 million.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 10 million won and damages for delay.

The plaintiff asserts that 100 million won, which was deducted from the judgment of the court of first instance, has been included in the offset claim in the above loan repayment lawsuit, and it has been double deducted.

In light of the purport of appeal, 175 million won is considered to be a clerical error of 125 million won or less in the purport of appeal, but it shall not be corrected.

3. Determination

A. According to the above basic facts as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining remaining purchase price of 125 million won after deducting the amount the plaintiff is the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant completed the sales amount of the instant E apartment and F real estate, and recognized the sales amount prior to the actual sales amount.