1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 480,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from March 15, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In light of the appraiser C’s appraisal that the document No. 1, which is the contract for parcelling-out agency, is forged, and that the seal affixed to the contract for parcelling-out agency is generally similar to the seal of the representative director of the defendant representative who registered the contract for parcelling-out agency, the seal affixed to the contract for parcelling-out agency can be recognized by the seal of the defendant representative director, and the authenticity of the contract for parcelling-out agency is presumed to have been formed by the seal of the defendant representative director, and the whole purport of the oral argument can be considered as a whole. The fact that the plaintiff (Da before changing the name) and the defendant entered into a contract for parcelling-out agency (hereinafter “instant parcelling-out agency contract”) as follows on May 7, 2015. The evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to reverse it.

① The Plaintiff shall vicariously carry out the sales business of urban residential housing and officetels (hereinafter “instant sales business”) that the Defendant is scheduled to build on the land outside the E of the Dong-gu, Nam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, and shall receive 4 million won per unit when entering into a contract under subparagraph 1 of the apartment housing.

② The Defendant shall provide the Plaintiff with spaces, office fixtures, and fixtures that the Plaintiff can use as the sales office, and the Plaintiff shall pay performance guarantee money of KRW 480 million to the Defendant.

(3) Where the defendant fails to satisfy all the conditions for authorization, permission and sale within two months after the contract is concluded, the performance guarantee money for sale by proxy shall be refunded.

④ If the Defendant fails to fulfill the contractual terms, the Plaintiff may rescind the contract.

B. The fact that when entering into a sales agency contract on May 7, 2015 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the payment of performance bonds, the Plaintiff paid 480 million won as performance bonds to the Defendant is as seen earlier.

The following facts are comprehensively taken into account Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings.