1. The Defendant’s KRW 90 million and the following day with respect to the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from November 1, 2014 to June 4, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 18, 2014, the Plaintiff sold to the Defendant KRW 230 million a total of KRW 1517 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to Gwangju-si, the Plaintiff owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”).

At the time of the conclusion of the above sales contract, the original Defendant agreed to exchange the down payment of KRW 20 million on the date of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 120 million on August 28, 2014, and the remainder of KRW 90 million on October 31, 2014, respectively. The Plaintiff received the down payment of KRW 20 million from the Defendant.

B. After August 27, 2014, the Plaintiff received an intermediate payment of KRW 120 million from the Defendant, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder amounting to KRW 90 million and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from November 1, 2014, which is the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order, to June 4, 2015, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that “the original Defendant sent and agreed to pay the balance within 15 days after the building permit was granted, and the Defendant currently did not obtain the building permit for the instant land, and thus, did not arrive at the due date for payment of the remainder.”

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a special contract as alleged by the Defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was such a contract as alleged by the Defendant [the stamp image of the Plaintiff’s name affixed to the sales contract (which is attached to the written objection dated June 16, 2015) is different from that of the Plaintiff’s seal affixed to the sales contract (Evidence A) of this case, and the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and acceptable.