1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the defendant's reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance has been stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the defendant's assertion of "2. Judgment as to the defendant's argument"

A. Although the defendant alleged that the contract of this case was terminated by agreement, the above defense cannot be accepted since there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

B. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff could not accept the Plaintiff’s claim since the Plaintiff was not fully paid the purchase price stipulated in the instant sales contract, and that part of the purchase price was paid directly by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, and that the remainder of the purchase price was paid to the Defendant by the father D, who is the father of the original Defendant, to the Defendant.

In light of the facts that the Defendant received KRW 45 million from D out of the purchase price, and comprehensively taking account of the entries in the evidence Nos. 3 and 5 as well as the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant: (a) transferred KRW 35 million from the Plaintiff’s account under the name of the Defendant to the Defendant’s account on October 30, 2009, the remainder payment date of the instant purchase and sale contract; and (b) stated the invoice directly prepared and sent by the Defendant to D as “the receipt of KRW 80 million from the dry field on Oct. 10, 2010,” and “Y field price of KRW 80 million” can be recognized as being the purchase price of the instant land; and (c) barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the full payment of KRW 80 million to the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

In this regard, the defendant received money that the defendant lent or received from the plaintiff or D only from the plaintiff or D, and received KRW 80 million from the plaintiff or D with the purchase price of the land of this case.