1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 60,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 21, 2018 to the date of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 30, 2015, the 29 square meters of the Kimpo-si C road was 288 square meters of the C-road following the merger (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Around August 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 60 million to the Defendant.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. On August 2015, the Plaintiff, around August 2015, entered into a sales contract with the Defendant by means of dividing part of the land owned by the Defendant into or acquiring shares in D, C, E, etc., and thereafter, upon the partial annexation of the land subject to the sale, the Plaintiff re-specific the subject matter of the sale as above in light of the end of 2015.

The Defendant asserts that, while concluding a sales contract to purchase KRW 60,00 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and paying KRW 60,000,000, the Defendant rejected the procedure for ownership transfer registration pursuant to the sales contract, and that the Plaintiff cancelled the instant sales contract on the grounds of the Defendant’s nonperformance, the Defendant should return KRW 60,000 to the Plaintiff upon cancellation of the contract, and that, in preliminary case, if the sales contract was not concluded, the amount of KRW 60,00 constitutes unjust enrichment and thus, the Defendant sought a return of KRW 60,00

B. As to this, the Defendant did not conclude the instant sales contract with the Plaintiff, but did not claim that 60,000 won was paid for the acceptance of land use.

3. In full view of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the aforementioned evidence and evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the fact that the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase 60,000 won of the price of the instant land from the Defendant and paid 60,000 won of the purchase price can be acknowledged. The fact that the duplicate of the complaint of this case, stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent of rescission, was delivered to the Defendant on April 20, 2018 is apparent in the record.