1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 3,320,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from January 30, 2015 to January 22, 2016; and (b) the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a business operator who operates electricity and equipment business with the trade name of D, and the defendant is the owner of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C.

B. Around April 2014, the Defendant, while carrying out construction of a multi-household building in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant construction”), concluded a contract with E for a wooden construction project (hereinafter “the instant construction project”) and F (2.8 million won per household), and the Plaintiff and electrical construction (125,000 won per average).

C. On September 16, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 74 million out of KRW 99 million as of September 16, 2015, and paid the remainder of KRW 25 million out of KRW 25 million as of KRW 25 million, and paid the remainder of KRW 15 million out of KRW 28 million, and paid KRW 18 million out of KRW 28 million as of KRW 18 million (=25 million). D.

Accordingly, on September 16, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a mortgage contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with respect to the Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, C302 (hereinafter “instant building”), and the specific content thereof are as follows.

Article 1 The defendant, as of September 16, 2014, established a security right as security for the payment of construction cost and all other obligations under a real transaction agreement entered into with the plaintiff as of September 16, 2014, shall transfer the ownership of the goods owned by the plaintiff to the plaintiff upon the lapse of the agreed time.

Article 2: The period for the return of an amount agreed upon at least 58 million won per day: If the defendant in the procedure for the return after the full payment of Article 3 on January 30, 2015 fully pays his/her obligation, the loan for use as provided for in Article 2 shall be extinguished by the ex officio cancellation.

Article 5 If the property transferred for security has been destroyed or lost regardless of the cause of the destruction of the security, or if it has been completed by the date of completion, it may be claimed to the defendant as a substitute.

On October 6, 2015, the defendant deposited KRW 59,988,301 for the plaintiff, and the defendant received it and received it and paid the construction price for E, F and each part.