1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 70,00,000 as well as 15% per annum from September 8, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 2013, the Defendant: (a) around February 2013 with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”); (b) “E building (E), a complex housing, is located in nine parcels outside Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Seoul; and (c) “multi-family housing” in the instant case.

A joint agreement was entered into to newly build a new unit and sell in lots.

The defendant under the above contract provided the site for the apartment house of this case, and C provided a financing for project costs.

B. F, a director of C, recommended the Plaintiff to designate a good Dong and unit upon deposit of the pre-sale contract in relation to the sale of the instant multi-family housing, and the Plaintiff as a director of F around October 28, 2013, the sales contract of the instant multi-family housing with the Defendant’s seal affixed on the seller’s column.

The sales contract of this case is called "sale contract of this case with signature and seal on the buyer's column."

After the conclusion of the contract, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 70,000,000 on November 4, 2013 with the agricultural bank account under the name of the Defendant, and KRW 20,000,000 on the 15th of the same month. Meanwhile, the instant contract is one of the five sales contracts in which the Defendant affixed the Defendant’s seal to the seller column and delivered the buyer’s column with blank as the buyer’s column. D. Since F or the Defendant did not designate the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s unit and number of the instant apartment houses among the instant apartment houses. [In the absence of any dispute over recognition, the Plaintiff did not have designated the Plaintiff as the unit and number of the instant apartment houses” [Article 1 through 2-2 of the Evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, and 1 of the witness F, testimony of the witness F, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 Plaintiff concluded a pre-sale contract with the Defendant for the instant multi-family housing, and concluded the instant sales contract by paying the pre-sale contract, and the Defendant did not execute the instant sales contract. As such, the Plaintiff cancelled the instant sales contract with the delivery of the preparatory document as of September 2, 2015 on the grounds of delay in the performance by serving the preparatory document on the part of the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant shall restore the original state to the plaintiff 70,000.