1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as annual 5% from July 21, 2015 to August 24, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 14, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract of this case (hereinafter “instant crops”) that the Defendant cultivated from the Defendant on the land of approximately 14,000 square meters (hereinafter “instant crops”).

(1) The sales contract of this case is a contract under which the sales price is KRW 100 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

(A) In entering into a sales contract for agricultural products (No. 1; hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

2) The sales contract of this case contains the following descriptions:

The owner of the crops shall sell and purchase approximately 14,00 square meters of crops at KRW 100 million, and receive KRW 50 million as the down payment on August 14, 2014: Provided, That in the above contract, if the above-mentioned contract violates the above-mentioned contract, the double amount of the down payment shall be the compensation, and if the above-mentioned contract violates the contract, the down payment shall not be returned in any way, and this contract shall not be null and void.

Provided, however, that the balance in the above contract does not return the down payment or the down payment if it violates the date of simultaneous completion by October 2, 2014.

Management is responsible for producers.

B. At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 6 million from the account in the name of the Defendant to the account in the name of the Defendant. Of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4 million to D as a check. D paid KRW 34 million among them to the Defendant, and the Defendant received KRW 40 million in total from the Plaintiff.

C. On September 19, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) on September 19, 2014, the Plaintiff: (b) surveyed the dry field in which the Plaintiff was planted, and (c) notified the Defendant of this fact; (b) on September 15, 2014, the Plaintiff was only the Defendant under the law, and (c) the Defendant was deprived of dialogue with the Plaintiff; (d) the Defendant was deceiving the Plaintiff to enter into a contract, which is the important part of the instant sales contract. This is a contract by fraud, and thus, the Plaintiff was the instant sales contract.