1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 27, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”) to sell the land at KRW 300 million to the Defendant of the window C of Changwon-si, Changwon-si, which was owned by the Plaintiff prior to the division (hereinafter “the land before division”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 29, 2006, as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. On January 10, 2007, the Defendant acquired the Plaintiff’s loan worth KRW 125 million with the Plaintiff’s land prior to subdivision as security.

C. On November 15, 2012, Changwon-si: (a) acquired 378 square meters of land prior to subdivision from the Defendant; and (b) paid the Defendant a total of KRW 77,585,000 of compensation for the land, and KRW 1,985,000 of compensation for the obstacles ( trees).

The above land was divided into D. D. D.

On August 18, 2014, the Gyeongnam Development Corporation acquired 196 square meters in consultation from the Defendant among the land before subdivision, and paid the Defendant the Defendant a total of KRW 52,920,00 in compensation for the land and KRW 823,330 in compensation for obstacles.

The above land was divided into E.

[Ground of recognition] Uncontentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (if there are additional numbers, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the original viewing of this court and fact-finding of the Gyeongnam Development Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Upon entering into the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed that KRW 125 million, out of KRW 300 million, the Defendant assumed the Plaintiff’s obligation, and that the remainder KRW 175 million shall be paid immediately to the Plaintiff upon the Defendant’s payment of the compensation for expropriation on the land before subdivision. The Defendant received the compensation for expropriation on the part of the land before subdivision, and the Defendant did not pay the purchase price to the Plaintiff even after receiving the compensation for expropriation. The instant sales contract was rescinded by serving a duplicate of the written complaint.

Therefore, the defendant has completed the real estate of this case as restitution.