1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit;

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 21, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase KRW 825,00,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) the instant real estate that the Plaintiff had been located within the land transaction permission zone from the Defendant at the time.

B. According to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a down payment of KRW 25,00,000 on June 20, 2012, which was the day before the contract was concluded, and paid KRW 425,000,000 until July 18, 2012. On July 20, 2012, the Plaintiff agreed to complete the registration of ownership transfer by calculating the instant 2 real estate owned by the Plaintiff as KRW 145,00,000 by taking over the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on the instant real estate as KRW 230,00,000,000, and the remainder amount of KRW 230,000,00 should substitute for the payment of remainder by taking over the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on the instant real estate.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s judgment as to the claim for principal lawsuit was null and void, cancelled, or cancelled as follows, and thus, is a return of unjust enrichment or based on a separate return agreement, and the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff should return the purchase price paid by the Plaintiff and cancel the registration of ownership transfer as to the two real estate of this case, which completed the registration of ownership transfer instead of a part of the purchase price

A. (1) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant sales contract was in a flexible invalidation state by means of a contract for land transaction permission, but the Plaintiff and the Defendant withdrawn the application for permission for land transaction on July 16, 2012 and finally invalidated.

If a transaction contract is in a state of flexible invalidation due to the lack of permission for land transaction, there is a non-permission disposition by the competent authority.