1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 116,903,431 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from November 29, 2017 to September 12, 2018; and (b) for the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 27, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a real estate sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant and the Seogu-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government apartment house D (hereinafter “instant apartment”) that sells the purchase price of KRW 50 million to the Defendant (on November 28, 2017, the payment deadline).

B. At the time of November 27, 2017, the registration of provisional attachment registration of KRW 30,100,000,000,000 for E’s claim amount, the maximum debt amount of KRW 432,00,000,000,000 for maximum debt amount, the debtor F-mortgage, and G-mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage”) was completed, and the principal amount of the secured debt of the instant apartment was KRW 352,96,569.

C. Upon the payment of the purchase price, the Defendant decided to take over the secured obligation of the instant mortgage, deposited the claim amount of KRW 30,100,000 for the said provisional seizure, and paid KRW 50,000 to the Plaintiff on November 28, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 16,903,431 under the instant sales contract to the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 550,00,000 - KRW 30,100,000 - KRW 352,996,569 - KRW 50,000) pursuant to the instant sales contract. The Defendant’s assertion 2) purchased the instant apartment at KRW 435,000,000, and the purchase price stated in the instant sales contract is set higher than the actual purchase price, taking into account the transfer income tax.

B. We examine the sales amount of the instant sales contract.

A disposition document (a sales contract) in which the formation is deemed authentic shall be recognized as the existence of a juristic act in its contents, unless there is a clear and acceptable reason to deny the contents thereof.

(See Supreme Court Decision 80Da442, Jun. 9, 1981). The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 3, which are ① The apartment of this case around November 27, 2017.