1. The Defendant’s KRW 279,200,000 among the Plaintiff and KRW 239,60,000 among the Plaintiff, shall be KRW 39,60,000 from June 30, 2017, and KRW 39,60,000.

1. Presumed factual basis

A. On June 12, 2017, the Plaintiff, as a broker of C engaged in real estate consulting business, purchased KRW 39,600,000 from the Defendant for the purchase of KRW 595 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Defendant for KRW 396,00,000, and paid KRW 39,60,000 for the intermediate payment on June 30, 2017.

(hereinafter “this case’s sales”). Article 7 of the sales contract of this case provides that a seller shall compensate for a double amount of the down payment at the time of a breach of contract.

B. However, on the ground of the instant land, there is an unregistered house owned by the Defendant, other than the building owned by the Defendant, and a person who leased and resides in the said house, claiming that there was a right to build a building on the neighboring site, etc., which is a development-restricted zone, by removing an existing building in the development-restricted zone, although not clearly shown in this case.

C. As of March 26, 2018, the Plaintiff sent a peremptory notice to the Defendant stating that “The Plaintiff would not pay any balance until the said problem is resolved because it became aware of the right to interest after a sales contract,” and the Defendant consented thereto. The Defendant did not resolve the balance within seven months from the date of the payment of the balance, on the ground that the Plaintiff had already known the existence of the right to interest at the time of the sales contract by changing the horses, and thus, the Plaintiff must resolve this.” As such, the Plaintiff sent a peremptory notice to the Defendant around April 3, 2018.

In regard to this, the Defendant, in the content certification of April 9, 2018, known to the Plaintiff that he had been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been holding the right to interest and had no mind to dispose of the land, unless he succeeded to the obligation of the said person or did not dispose of the land. In addition, even at the time of the sales contract, the Plaintiff did not think that the Plaintiff would have to sell the land unless the Plaintiff resolved