2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff met the terms and conditions of the contract with the defendant, and at that time the defendant demanded the contract to sell the freezing fishery products storage on the land.

However, after the plaintiff's investigation into the administrative agency after the sales contract, he heard that one parcel of two parcels of land is impossible to be constructed, and the defendant followed the defendant as well as the defendant as possible, and prepared a certificate (Evidence A2) stating that "the remaining purchase and sale amount after obtaining a warehouse permit shall be paid as requested by the plaintiff on December 14, 2017."

However, D notified the cancellation of the sales contract as of February 12, 2018 on the grounds of the unpaid balance, and thus, even though the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D to claim the return of down payment (the Jeju District Court 2018Kadan1679), the Plaintiff lost and suffered damages due to the forfeiture of down payment.

As a result, the Defendant is liable for damages of KRW 80,000,000, since the Plaintiff was released from the sales contract after the due date for the payment of the remainder until the time the construction permit was obtained, because the Defendant believed that the payment of the remainder was postponed.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the description of the evidence No. 2 of the judgment and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant, who was aware of the fact in the process of the Plaintiff’s physical inspection of the site for the storage of the warehouse, consulted on the trading conditions on behalf of D in the instant sales contract and prepared a certificate No. 2 of the evidence No. 2.

However, as the plaintiff's assertion, whether the defendant was released from the sales contract of this case under the condition that the plaintiff knew that the remaining date was postponed.