1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 120,000,000 as well as to the plaintiff on July 2012.

1. On April 5, 2012, the Plaintiff sold approximately KRW 30,000,000 of surplus soil accumulated in the Hasan-si Typ (H) to the Defendant at KRW 170,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant transaction”). The Defendant paid KRW 50,000,000 out of the purchase price to D limited liability company on the same day (hereinafter “D”) and again remitted the said money to the Plaintiff by means of remitting the said money to the Plaintiff, and the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 50,00,000 out of the purchase price is either free of dispute between the parties or may be recognized by the evidence Nos. 1, 9, and evidence Nos. 10-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 10-2, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid purchase price of KRW 120,000,00 and delay damages thereon.

2. Determination on the defense, etc.

A. 1) As to whether the Defendant’s obligation to pay the instant purchase price was extinguished by the Defendant’s issuance of the Promissory Notes, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff paid the Promissory Notes to the Plaintiff in lieu of payment of KRW 120,00,000 out of the instant purchase price, and thus, the obligation to pay KRW 120,000 out of the instant purchase price was extinguished. 2) In the event that the obligor delivers the Promissory Notes to the obligee, barring any special intent between the parties, it shall be presumed that the existing underlying obligation still exists, and it shall be deemed that the existing underlying obligation still exists, and that there exists a “for payment” or “for security.” Unless there are special circumstances, the existing underlying obligation shall be deemed to exist concurrently with the obligation under the Promissory Notes. If the principal obligor in the Promissory Notes is not identical with the debtor in the underlying relationship, it shall be presumed that it would be “for payment” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da25060, Nov. 8, 1996).