1. The defendant is about 30 square meters from the plaintiff's land in Japan and about 40 square meters from the plaintiff's land.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 30, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) sold to the Defendant, on March 30, 2013, 2013, 2.5 million UN currency (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) 27.5 million won in Japan (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate”), and 2.5 million UN (hereinafter referred to as April 30, 2013, 2.5 million UN payment of KRW 25 million within June 30, 2013, to the ESA building (427.34 square meters in the office of a church branch of the steel-frame, the Gaol-dong branch of the Dong-dong branch of the roof branch of the Korean branch of the Korean branch of the Korean branch of the Korean branch of the Korean branch of the Korean branch of the Korean branch of the Korean branch of the Korean branch of the Korean branch of the Korean branch of the Korean branch of the Korean branch of the Korean branch of the Korean branch of the Korean branch of the Korean branch of the Korean branch of the Korean branch of the Korea”).

B. Since then, the Defendant paid part of the purchase price of this case, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on August 9, 2013.

C. Meanwhile, around August 30, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant confirmed that the Defendant acquired the instant real estate from the Plaintiff and received the ownership transfer registration from the Plaintiff on August 1, 2013, and entered into an agreement to extend the remainder of the purchase price to August 30, 2014, which was not paid by the Defendant.

The defendant up to now.

The remainder 14 million UN did not be paid to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder 14 million won out of the purchase price of the instant case and delay damages from August 31, 2014, which is the day following the due date.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. 1 The instant sales contract, claiming the invalidity of an unfair juristic act, was concluded at a price significantly higher than the market price by taking advantage of the Defendant’s old-age, rashness, and inexperience.