1. The Defendant’s KRW 60,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from August 2, 2016 to April 26, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. On May 27, 2016, the Defendant purchased the land of Ulsan-gu and the four-story buildings thereon (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant real estate”), and acquired ownership by completing the registration of ownership transfer on July 12, 2016.

On the same day, the right to collateral security of KRW 57 billion was established in the future of the new Saemaul Depository.

[A] The actual amount of debt was KRW 390 million.

As of July 21, 2016, the real estate of this case was entered into a sales contract as shown in the separate sheet in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant under the brokerage of real estate broker D, with respect to the real estate of this case.

[Attachment 2; hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The total sales amount is KRW 850 million, and the total sales amount is KRW 60 million among which the down payment is KRW 60 million on the date of the contract, the buyer takes over the loan amount of KRW 390 million on the date of the contract, and the remainder KRW 400 million on October 31, 2016.

On July 21, 2016, the Plaintiff, as a check, sent KRW 60 million to D as a check, and D, under the name of Dong E, remitted KRW 60 million to the head of Tong in the name of Dong E to KRW 2:31 on the same day.

[A] On July 22, 2016, the following day, the Defendant returned the road by remitting cash of KRW 60 million to the account in the name of D on July 22, 2016.

[3] The above facts are not disputed, or are recognized as the purport of the whole pleadings, in addition to the macroscopic evidence.

2. The Plaintiff: (a) the instant sales contract was normally concluded with F and entrusted by the Defendant; (b) accordingly, remitted the down payment to the Defendant; (c) the Defendant unilaterally returned the down payment without any reason; and (d) the instant sales contract was cancelled by indicating that the Defendant did not intend to implement the instant sales contract; and (c) thus, the instant sales contract was cancelled due to a cause attributable to the Defendant; (d) accordingly, the Defendant asserts that, in addition to the down payment received by the Defendant, the Defendant claimed an amount equivalent to the down payment pursuant to Article