1. The Defendant’s KRW 13,750,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from November 1, 2017 to May 28, 2019.

Facts of recognition

On September 22, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for the purchase of at least KRW 12,000,000,00 from the land of Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do, as well as KRW 23,00,00,00 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

The Defendant delivered 23 units to the Plaintiff on the day of the instant sales contract, and the Plaintiff paid the down payment of KRW 5 million to the Defendant on the same day.

On October 24, 2014, the Plaintiff paid 95 million won to the Defendant the remaining purchase price.

Unlike the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement on a facility facility site separately with the landowner on the site where each facility facility is located.

However, around April 2015, the lease contract renewal was not made with respect to the site for the facility loaders 4 units, and the plaintiff was faced with the situation that all the above facility loaders 4 units should be removed.

On June 5, 2017, the Defendant drafted a written confirmation of June 5, 2017, stating that “The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff, by October 31, 2017, KRW 18,000,000,00 to compensate for the losses incurred to the four operating facilities” (hereinafter referred to as “instant written confirmation”).

The amount that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff according to the instant confirmation is KRW 4,250,000,000.

[Ground for recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the absence of dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 2-8, Gap’s evidence No. 11-2, Eul’s evidence No. 2, and the ground for claim as a whole of the pleadings. The Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 13.75 million, out of the amount set forth in the instant confirmation document.

② Furthermore, at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Defendant, while well aware of the fact that it is difficult to renew the said contract on the four premises of the facility loaders in the future, had the Plaintiff enter into the said sales contract by deceiving the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, the defendant.