1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 160 million to the Plaintiff; and (b) 5% per annum from April 2, 2016 to September 1, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around January 2012, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant that KRW 160,000,000,000 for KRW 160,000,00 for the transfer price of KRW 100,00,00 in Jung-gu, Incheon (20,000 square meters for the real estate registration injury; hereinafter “instant site”). The Plaintiff paid KRW 160,000,000 for the transfer price by August 2, 2012.

B. On the instant site, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “right to collateral security”) was set up on February 3, 2009, the maximum debt amount of KRW 280,000,000 on April 17, 2009, the maximum debt amount of KRW 140,000,000 as of July 17, 2009, the maximum debt amount of KRW 350,000,000 as of November 11, 2010, the maximum debt amount of KRW 182,00,000 as of December 9, 201, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “the maximum debt amount of KRW 40,000,000 as of December 29, 201). The right to collateral security (the right to collateral security) set up on the second floor of reinforced concrete structure as of December 29, 2011.

C. Although the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the implementation of the instant agreement, the Defendant did not divide the instant site subject to transfer so far to the Plaintiff and did not transfer ownership to the Plaintiff. The duplicate of the instant complaint, on April 1, 2016, stating the Defendant’s declaration of intent to terminate the instant transfer agreement on the grounds of nonperformance of the instant transfer agreement, reaches the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3-3 of Gap evidence 3, facts which are obvious in records, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Examining the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the Plaintiff’s restitution based on the termination of the instant agreement, which is a claim for the payment of KRW 160 million and damages for delay thereof, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, the instant agreement is deemed to have been lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of agreement, barring any special circumstance.