1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant is paid KRW 58,00,000 from the plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion is between C and C, who represented the Defendant on March 9, 2010, a sales contract consisting of KRW 181 million for the instant apartment. (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

As the Defendant concluded the instant apartment, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of the instant sales contract to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant’s assertion ① The parties to the instant sales contract are not the Defendant, and the Defendant did not confer C the authority to dispose of the instant apartment on behalf of the Defendant.

② Since C unilaterally deposited KRW 40 million, which is a distribution of down payment, and KRW 43 million, which is the sum of KRW 3 million unilaterally remitted by the Plaintiff, and expressed its intent to cancel, the instant sales contract was lawfully rescinded.

③ Even if the instant sales contract is valid, the Defendant is obliged to pay the remainder unpaid from the Plaintiff and simultaneously perform the registration procedure for ownership transfer to the Plaintiff.

B. 1) The judgment of this court is required for the formation of a contract of relevant legal principles, but such agreement is not required for all matters constituting the content of the contract, and there is an agreement between the parties to the contract of this case and the standards, methods, etc. that are specifically and specifically agreed upon or specific in the future with respect to its essential or important matters. On the other hand, the contract of this case is concluded through an agreement between the parties on the transfer of the property right by the seller and the payment of the money by the purchaser (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39594, Nov. 24, 2006).