2. After an appeal is filed.

A. On October 17, 2012, the Defendant: (a) drafted a real estate sales contract (hereinafter “instant primary contract”); and (b) stipulated that “the Defendant shall deliver to the buyer a written consent for land use necessary for the permission (the instant primary contract”) of the instant primary contract to sell KRW 132,232 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest”) among KRW 143,941 square meters of C forest land in Yangju-si, Yangju-si, the Plaintiff’s director, for KRW 3.5 billion (hereinafter “instant forest”); and (c) stipulated that “the Defendant shall deliver a written consent for land use necessary for the permission (training)” as a special agreement.

B. On July 3, 2013, the Defendant again prepared a real estate sales contract (hereinafter “the instant secondary contract”) on October 19, 2012, stating that the Plaintiff sells the instant forest in KRW 3.5 billion, with the content that it would sell the instant forest in KRW 3.5 billion. The instant secondary contract was concluded, and the down payment shall be increased from the existing KRW 200 million to KRW 350 million; the down payment shall be paid until July 3, 2013; and the following details were stipulated as a special agreement:

Matters of special agreement

3. A seller shall keep a written consent to the use of land required for the permission from the purchaser during the period;

at the time of permission (the training center) shall be deleted (at least three times the matters in the special agreement and the documents necessary for the permission shall be deleted);

C. Meanwhile, on October 19, 2012, D, the Plaintiff’s director, paid 200 million won for the down payment under the instant first contract, and on July 3, 2013, the Plaintiff paid 150 million won for the additional down payment under the instant second contract.

In around 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the return of the down payment KRW 350 million by asserting that the instant secondary contract was invalidated or that the instant secondary contract was revoked by mistake, even if the said contract was not invalidated or revoked, the penalty for breach of contract was excessive as the liquidated damages. The first instance court asserted by the Plaintiff.