1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 394,809,240 as well as 20% per annum from July 25, 2014 to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 22, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant sold KRW 510,045 square meters of the instant forest C (hereinafter “instant forest”) to the Defendant for KRW 510,000,000,000, the contract deposit of KRW 15,000 among the proceeds was concluded on the date of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 150,000,000 on August 10, 201, and the remainder of KRW 345,00,000 on December 30, 201 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. On July 29, 201, the Plaintiff’s husband and agent D entered into a modified contract with the Defendant’s husband and agent E to adjust the payment period, etc. of the instant sales contract (hereinafter “instant modified contract”).

The details of the instant modified contract are as follows.

1. Contract deposit: 115,000,000 won; and

2. Part payments: 45,00,000 won, August 20, 2011

3. Remaining balance: (350,000,000) a collateral security shall be established in the second order with respect to any balance paid by the defendant on the land of the forest of this case within one month after the completion of the factory.

(hereinafter omitted)

C. On July 29, 201, the date of the instant change contract, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the forest land of this case to the Defendant on the ground of the instant contract.

On August 1, 2011, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 115,190,760 as part of the purchase price under the instant sales contract by the Defendant.

E. On September 25, 2013, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the grounds of sale on August 10, 2013 with respect to the instant forest land to F.

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

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

(a)in respect of a juristic act to which relevant legal principles have been attached, if it is reasonable to deem that the failure to perform the obligation would not have occurred unless the facts indicated in the subsidiary have occurred, it should be viewed as a condition, and if it is confirmed that not only the facts indicated have occurred but also the objection has not occurred.