1. The Defendant’s KRW 23,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from June 18, 2014 to February 5, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 30, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant with respect to the six-story A-dong 601 and 602 (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”) of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Building 6 (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”) at KRW 290 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On June 18, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 48 million out of the down payment per contract date, the down payment of KRW 30 million, and the intermediate payment of KRW 18 million.

B. Article 6 (Non-performance of Obligations and Compensation for Damages) of the instant sales contract provides that “The contracting party may claim damages arising from the rescission of the contract to the other party, and the down payment shall be deemed as the basis for damages, unless otherwise agreed.”

C. Since then, the Plaintiff failed to pay part of the intermediate payment and the remainder, and the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff through her husband’s account, KRW 23 million, out of the purchase price that the Plaintiff received through her husband’s account, was KRW 10 million on February 15, 2014, and the same year.

3.3. 10 million won, and the return was made in installments in the amount of KRW 5 million on March 11, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap1 to 5 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff’s sales contract was rescinded by an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 53 million which was not returned ( KRW 78 million - 25 million) and damages for delay.

B. Since the instant sales contract was cancelled due to the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the purchase price, it shall be deemed that the down payment was confiscated.

In addition, the Defendant incurred losses by making the instant shopping mall at the low price upon the Plaintiff’s request without receiving the full payment of the purchase price. Accordingly, the Defendant agreed between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to refund only KRW 25 million out of the intermediate payment in consideration of the Defendant’s losses, and paid the said amount to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant did not refund the purchase price to the Plaintiff.

3. The judgment of this case.