1. Defendant B’s KRW 80,000,000 as well as annual 5% from May 15, 2012 to October 18, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 11, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant B to sell two parcels of land (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the purchase price of KRW 180,000,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On October 21, 201, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant real estate in the future of Defendant B on October 21, 2010.

B. Defendant B paid only KRW 70 million out of the purchase price under the instant sales contract to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Defendant B, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, did not pay KRW 80 million out of the purchase price of this case, and the Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant B in fraud.

Accordingly, Defendant B prepared and ordered a loan certificate (Evidence A No. 3) to confirm that the unpaid amount of the instant purchase price is KRW 80,000,000, and Defendant C guaranteed the instant purchase price based on the loan certificate.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 80 million and damages for delay.

3. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the determination as to the claim against Defendant B, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 80 million, which is the amount unpaid out of the instant purchase price, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from May 15, 2012 to October 18, 2017, which is the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, as claimed by the Plaintiff, from May 15, 2012 to October 18, 2017.

B. The loan certificate (No. 3) submitted by the Plaintiff with respect to the claim against Defendant C as a documentary evidence does not have any signature or seal of the Defendants, and the Defendants asserted that the above loan certificate was not prepared, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the authenticity.

Therefore, the above loan certificate (A No. 3) is valid.