1. The Defendant’s KRW 28,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from April 17, 2014 to July 27, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings in evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the Plaintiff was the owner of 199/9342 shares (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On January 27, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with D and third parties under the Defendant’s brokerage, a licensed real estate agent, selling the instant real estate at KRW 283.8 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On January 27, 2014, the Defendant, on January 27, 2014, the day of the instant sales contract, prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a 28 million won payment statement (hereinafter “instant payment note”), stating that the Plaintiff would pay the remainder of the instant sales contract to the Plaintiff on January 27, 2014, when the remainder of the instant sales contract is treated smoothly. The Plaintiff, a purchaser of the instant real estate, was recognized to have paid the purchase price under the sales contract from January 27, 2014 to April 17, 2014

B. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the purchase price of KRW 28 million, which is the amount on the letter of payment in this case, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from April 17, 2014 to July 27, 2016, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to this, the Defendant first filed a lawsuit against D for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “previous lawsuit of this case”) with the District Court at around 2014, and asserted that D bears the obligation based on the instant payment note, and the Defendant is a joint and several surety. Accordingly, the Defendant did not receive a lawful brokerage commission from D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s obligor based on the instant payment note in the lawsuit of this case.