1. The part of the claim, among the lawsuits for review of this case, on the ground of forgery of the evidence No. 13 shall be dismissed.

2. Remaining;

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the purchase price against the Defendant on November 18, 2010 (hereinafter “the first instance court”) in the judgment subject to a retrial.

(C) the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant, in relation to the purchase and sale contract of the instant land (hereinafter “instant purchase and sale contract”), filed a lawsuit claiming for unpaid purchase and sale amount (Seoul District Court Decision 2010Gahap2676), determined that the Plaintiff and the Defendant, around July 8, 2009, entered into three copies of the purchase and sale contract with the purchase price of KRW 40 million (24,117,000), around December 5, 2009, and KRW 524,117,000 (3), and KRW 430,000,000 as of March 25, 2010, and the Plaintiff asserted that “the content of the sale and sale contract became final and conclusive as stipulated in the third contract, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid purchase and sale price of KRW 226,600,000,000,000 among the purchase price.”

In addition, the first instance court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant paid the unpaid purchase price to D, who is the Plaintiff’s agent, on the ground that it is difficult to deem D as having the right to receive the purchase price on behalf of the Plaintiff.

3) As a result of appeal and final appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiff and the defendant are dissatisfied with the judgment of the court of first instance and thus, Gwangju High Court (hereinafter “Appeal

The appeal was filed.

On November 28, 2012, the appellate court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that “D had a legitimate authority to receive the purchase price on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant paid D the purchase price in full, and thus, the Defendant’s claim for payment of the Plaintiff’s purchase price was not reasonable.”