1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was a person with the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer against the Nam-gu 1,476 square meters and 17 lots (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On July 21, 2014, the Defendant entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff on the transfer of the provisional registration on the instant real estate and the payment of KRW 350 million to the Plaintiff.

C. On July 30, 2014, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership rights on the instant real estate on July 30, 2014 by reason of transfer of contract.

On July 31, 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff, and paid KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff on January 20, 2015.

E. On the other hand, around November 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted again an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that “the Plaintiff shall transfer the provisional registration of the instant real estate to the Defendant, and shall pay the price of KRW 450 million as down payment, the intermediate payment of KRW 150 million (payment on December 18, 2014), and the remainder of KRW 200 million as down payment.”

On December 18, 2014, the Defendant transferred KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff’s account, and then withdrawn KRW 100 million again at that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. On December 18, 2014, the Plaintiff received KRW 100 million from the Defendant, and subsequently lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant again.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay KRW 100 million and delay damages to the plaintiff.

In this regard, the defendant asserted that at the request of the plaintiff, the agreement was drafted again for the purpose of tax return on November 2014, and that there was no fact that 100 million won was borrowed from the plaintiff.

B. Based on the judgment, the Defendant paid KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff around December 2014, and then withdrawn again, as seen earlier.

However, the above evidence and evidence No. 2, and witness D's testimony can be identified by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the above evidence and evidence No. 3.