2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was rescinded by the Intervenor’s rescission notice.

Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to pay the down payment, intermediate payment, and damages for delay paid from Cocogma, as the restitution following the cancellation of each sales contract. The Defendants’ right to restitution against the Defendants of Cocogma was provided as security for transfer to the PF bond group, and subsequently transferred to the Plaintiff again, the Defendants ultimately bear the duty to restore the said right to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendants’ assertion (1) as the Defendants completed the performance of their obligations based on the instant sales contract, the Intervenor’s rescission is null and void as it does not have any effect, or is an abuse of right of rescission.

② The right to claim restitution due to the cancellation of the instant contract was not yet established at the time of the instant contract for the transfer of security, and was created only after the bankruptcy was declared by the trustee in bankruptcy who is in the position of a third party after the declaration of bankruptcy, and thus, the said right to claim restitution is not included in the object of the transfer of security, but belongs to the bankruptcy estate of

(C) (3) The sales contract of this case was cancelled due to the causes attributable to Cocoama, and thus the down payment is reverted to the Defendants under Article 7 of the sales contract of this case.

④ The Defendants suffered damages that did not use or benefit from the instant real estate due to the nonperformance of the obligation to pay the remainder, the market price decline in the instant real estate, and the liquidated damages due to delay in the payment of the purchase price, and thus offset the Intervenor’s claim for restitution against the damage claim.

(c)the intervenor;