A. On June 9, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff to sell the Category D (AT and 37.55 square meters) of the C building in Seopopo-si to the Defendant for KRW 146,537,270 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. According to the instant sales contract, the Defendant: (a) paid the sales price in installments; (b) KRW 14,653,720 as the down payment; (c) the first intermediate payment on August 2016; (d) the second intermediate payment on December 2016; and (e) the third intermediate payment on April 3, 2017; and

8. As of the fourth intermediate payment, the fifth intermediate payment, and the sixth intermediate payment on March 2018, each of 14,653,720 won, the remainder amounting to 43,961,160 won, and the arrears calculated at the rate of 17% per annum in the event that the payment of the purchase price is delayed.

C. However, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 14,653,720 and KRW 43,961,160 on behalf of the Plaintiff. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff the part payment interest of KRW 2,288,389 on the part payment, interest of KRW 6,217,593 on the remainder, and interest of KRW 664,290 on the remainder, and property tax of KRW 146,270 on behalf of the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 17% per annum, which is the interest rate of the agreed delay from September 27, 2019 to the day of complete payment, 67,931,422 won (=6th intermediate payment 14,653,720 won + interest rate of 43,961,160 won + interest rate of 2,288,389 won + interest rate of 6,289 won + interest rate of 6,217,593 + management expenses + 664,290 won + property tax equivalent to 664,290 won + interest rate of 666,290 won.

As to this, the defendant alleged to the effect that the defendant renounced down payment to the plaintiff and expressed his intention to cancel the sales contract of this case. However, it is difficult to recognize that the sales contract of this case was cancelled on the sole basis of the defendant's assertion.