1. The Defendant’s KRW 35,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from October 25, 2005 to November 19, 2013 to the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

The Defendant acquired the ownership of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) around October 17, 1995, and around September 19, 2006, the Defendant owned the said real estate before Nonparty C was awarded a successful bid.

B. On October 19, 2005, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 30 million to the Defendant, and on October 24, 2005, KRW 5 million to Nonparty D, who is the Plaintiff’s person who was subject to the Defendant’s Lee Jae-in punishment, respectively.

C. On November 19, 2005, the decision of voluntary auction on the instant real estate was rendered, and Nonparty C was awarded a successful bid.

After October 22, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for the instant payment order and caused the cancellation of the sales contract.

It claimed the return of KRW 35 million as stated in the paragraph.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On October 2005, the Plaintiff asserted that the purchase price for the instant real estate was KRW 130 million between the Defendant and KRW 150 million; among them, KRW 95 million was concluded as a substitute for the payment of the purchase price to the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant real estate by Nonparty 2, 2005 and Nonparty 24, 2005, and the Defendant lost the ownership of the instant real estate while the Plaintiff paid the remainder of KRW 35 million to the Defendant on October 19, 2005, even though the Plaintiff paid the full amount of the purchase price to the Defendant on October 24, 2005. The Plaintiff asserted that the above sale contract was rescinded with an application for the delivery of the instant payment order containing a declaration of intent to cancel the sale contract, and that the Defendant should return the purchase price to the Plaintiff.

In this regard, the Defendant asserted that the buyer of the instant real estate as Nonparty D merely lent part of the purchase price to D upon request of D, and that the Plaintiff did not conclude a sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

B. The fact that no sales contract was prepared between the plaintiff and the defendant does not conflict between the parties, and the fact that subparagraph B was written is based on the evidence No. 1.