1. The Defendant’s KRW 399,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from September 1, 2012 to March 25, 2015.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the Parties or in the entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including paper numbers) by integrating the purpose of the entire pleadings.

On July 16, 2004, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement between Non-Party New Village Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “New Village Co., Ltd.”) and Non-Party New Village Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “New Village Co., Ltd.”) on a lease agreement with the Non-Party 74-12 located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul for the first to fourth floor of the New Village Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “New Village Co., Ltd., which is different from the subway No. 2 Line Co., Ltd.) for 30 years.

The Defendant created a large shopping center (hereinafter “the shopping mall of this case”) in the name of “the New Village Resident’s History,” and decided to sell the shopping mall of this case by dividing it into at least 1,400 small units (hereinafter “Gu”) under the name of “the New Village Resident’s History,” and concluded a sales agency contract with multiple buyers, and leased and sold the store of the shopping mall of this case to many buyers.

B. On August 10, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant to pay the Defendant development expenses equivalent to 30% of the sales price for the above 20% of the sales price (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) under the condition that the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the development expenses equivalent to 30% of the sales price for the above 30% of the sales price under the pretext of the interior mall’s interior cost, promotion cost, etc. (hereinafter “instant development expense agreement”).

After that, until 2006, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 305,00,000 for the sale price, KRW 90,000 for the development cost, and KRW 4,000 for the advance payment management cost, and KRW 39,000 for the advance payment management cost.

2. The plaintiff's ground for claim

A. Some of the buyers, who have the primary cause of claim, brought a lawsuit claiming the return of the sale price, etc. against the Defendant by asserting the cancellation of the lease sale contract, and won the lawsuit, the Defendant, including the Plaintiff, around May 25, 2012.