1. The Plaintiff’s contract deposit amount of KRW 207,00,000 following the cancellation of the real estate sales contract as of September 1, 2015 against the Defendant.

1. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of a monetary obligation to determine the cause of the claim, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, claims in advance to deny the fact that the cause of the claim occurred by specifying the claim first, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of proving the facts that

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259 delivered on March 13, 1998). The submitted evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant has a claim for the return of KRW 207,00,000 for the down payment following the cancellation of the instant sales contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Rather, according to the purport of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 through 3, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, and Eul evidence 5, the plaintiff as joint purchaser on September 1, 2015, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant for the sale of at least 2,069,100,000 won for purchase price of at least 12,893 square meters for the defendant and the defendant for the remainder of KRW 1,862,10,000 for the contract date, and the remainder of KRW 1,862,10,000 for the remainder of 1,200,000 for the remainder of 2,00,000 won for the remainder of 2,00,000 won for the remainder of 207,000,000,0000 won for the remainder of 2,000,000,000 won for the remainder of 2,015,000,000.

"A letter of performance" has been prepared, and the plaintiff has prepared all documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership of the above land.