1. The Defendant’s KRW 124,389,00 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from October 10, 2016 to February 8, 2017, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 15, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for the purchase price of 1,243,890,000 square meters for the total land of 2,419 square meters owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant and paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 124,389,000 on the same day.

B. Article 4 of the instant sales contract provides that “The purchase and sale for the purpose of purchasing a adjoining land and constructing multi-family housing and selling it to the general public.” This contract is null and void in cases where the performance of the instant sales contract and the intermediate payment, or the payment of the balance is impossible due to the buyer’s cancellation of business, the authorization and permission of the business, the change of the district unit, and the change of business related persons, and where the whole project site necessary for the business is not purchased. The buyer returns the down payment to the seller within 10 days from the date of written notification

Article 17 (Separate Special Agreement) The following Special Agreements shall prevail over the above General Provisions:

The payment date of the balance shall be deposited in the account within ten months ( July 14, 2016) from the date of the payment of the down payment.

Provided, That where the project approval is granted before ten months, it shall be paid within 14 days after the project approval is granted.

C. After entering into the instant sales contract, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to revise the terms and conditions of the contract, and the Defendant consulted with the Plaintiff’s office and added Article 17 to the instant sales contract as follows.

In addition to Article 17, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to add the phrase “if the remainder is not paid by the due date, no down payment shall be returned” (hereinafter “the provision for forfeiture of contract deposit”), but the Plaintiff rejected it.

E. On July 2016, the Plaintiff revoked the progress of the new construction-sale business of multi-family housing for reasons such as the Plaintiff’s failure to purchase the entire project site.