1. The Defendant is limited to the Plaintiff’s sale on August 1, 2015 with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 5, 2013, the Plaintiff leased real estate listed in the separate sheet from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the lease deposit amounting to KRW 250 million, and the lease period from March 4, 2013 to March 3, 2015.

B. On August 1, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased the instant apartment at KRW 410 million with C, which is the Defendant’s agent, and paid KRW 10 million out of the down payment of KRW 40 million at the time of a contract, and the remainder of the down payment of KRW 30 million in substitution for the corresponding amount out of the existing lease deposit. The remainder of the remainder of the down payment of KRW 30 million is settled at the time of payment in substitution for the corresponding amount out of the existing lease deposit, and the remainder of KRW 220 million out of the remainder of KRW 370 million (= KRW 250 million - KRW 30 million) is replaced with the lease deposit, and the remainder of the remainder is paid at the same time as the documents required for the registration of ownership transfer of the instant apartment on October 2, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). C.

On December 14, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to the Defendant on the day of the contract pursuant to the instant sales contract, but received a claim from the Defendant to the effect that the validity of the instant sales contract cannot be recognized, the Plaintiff deposited the remainder of KRW 150 million with the Defendant as the principal deposit in this Court No. 4421, Dec. 14, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On the basis of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff asserted by the parties against the Defendant for the execution of the registration procedure for ownership transfer of the instant apartment.

In regard to this, the defendant, after hearing the horses that "Irre, is residing in Japan and there is a person to purchase the apartment of this case from C according to the market price," and comprehensively delegated C with the sale of the apartment of this case to C, but there is no specific statement from C that I would sell the apartment of this case under what terms and conditions with C, or there is no delegation from C. Thus, C does not have to do so.