1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) simultaneously with the delivery of each of the buildings described in paragraph (2) below from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Basic facts

A. On June 16, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) from the Defendant for KRW 4.35 billion. The Plaintiff agreed to pay the down payment of KRW 10 million up to June 16, 2016, the first intermediate payment of KRW 90 million up to June 22, 2016, the second intermediate payment of KRW 100 million up to July 30, 2016, and the third intermediate payment of KRW 200 million up to September 30, 2016, the remainder of KRW 3.95 billion up to September 30, 2016, and the third intermediate payment of KRW 200 million up to June 30, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the purchase price in this case, KRW 10 million on June 16, 2016, KRW 50 million on June 21, 2016, KRW 40 million on June 22, 2016, KRW 12,700,519 on August 1, 2016, KRW 40,000 on August 12, 2016, KRW 10,000 on November 3, 2016, KRW 72,70519 on December 12, 2016, KRW 10,000 on December 1, 201, KRW 200 on December 21, 2016, KRW 200,000 (total KRW 72,705,519, KRW 200 on June 21, 207, KRW 17195).

C. On January 9, 2017, the Plaintiff received a provisional attachment order as to each of the instant real estate under the Changwon District Court Decision 2016Kadan1618, by deeming the claim for the return of down payment, etc. of KRW 172,70,519 as the preserved right.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9 and Eul evidence No. 1 (including provisional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the main claim

A. On the premise that the Plaintiff did not intend to maintain the validity of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff sought the return of KRW 172,700,519, which was paid as the purchase price, to the instant principal lawsuit. Under the premise that the Defendant did not intend to maintain the validity of the instant sales contract, the Defendant also sought to transfer the Plaintiff’s possession of each of the instant real estate, which is the subject matter of the instant counterclaim, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant, except for the dispute over the scope of return of profits accrued from the Plaintiff’s use of and benefit from each of the instant real estate, out of the purchase price, have the effect of the instant sales contract and the return