1. The Defendant’s KRW 36 million and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from April 4, 2008 to August 10, 2012, and the following.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The following facts can be acknowledged according to the purport of evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and the entire argument.

(1) On July 3, 2006, the Plaintiff sold each of the mining rights listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the mining right of this case”) to the Defendant, with the payment of KRW 40 million, and the remainder payment date fixed as “within six months from the date when the mining permit (authorization of mining plan) was obtained with respect to the mining right of this case” (hereinafter “the sale of this case”); and (b) on July 4, 2006, the transfer registration was completed on July 4, 2006 for the mining right of this case to the Defendant on the ground of the sale of this case.

(2) On April 3, 2007, the Defendant obtained from the Gangwon-do Governor of Gangwon-do the authorization of mining plan (hereinafter “authorization of mining plan of this case”) with respect to the mining right of this case and other mining rights (registration number B, mining land register C; mineral name and area of each mining right of this case). (B) on November 17, 2008, the Industrial Bank of Korea registered the establishment of a maximum claim amount of 200 million won with respect to the mining right of this case, and (c) on July 28, 2009, paid to the Plaintiff KRW 4 million out of the price of the sale of this case.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant, in principle, is obligated to pay the plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 36 million out of the sales price of this case.

2. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s claim denies the payment obligation of the purchase price, alleging that “the existence of defects at the time of sale in the instant mining right.”

However, it is difficult to accept all the Defendant’s arguments on the specific contents of defects as follows.

① First, the Defendant asserts to the effect that “it is impossible to approve the mining plan of the instant mining right.”

However, the fact that the Defendant obtained the authorization of the mining plan of this case after the purchase of the mining right of this case is as seen earlier, and therefore, this part of the allegation is without merit.

② The Defendant is again the case.