2. As to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is from July 4, 2016 to KRW 30 million.

A. On April 30, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a sales contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”) in attached Form (hereinafter referred to as “the legal act indicated therein”) for convenience. In this case, where there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Plaintiff actually paid 30 million won out of the down payment 64,300,000 won to the Defendant pursuant to the instant contract, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant contract is the primary cause of claim, and the Plaintiff is “non-performance corresponding to the Defendant’s refusal of performance” or “cases where the purpose of the instant contract cannot be achieved due to that cause,” and thus, the instant contract was lawfully rescinded due to the Defendant’s fault.

B. Therefore, after the conclusion of the instant contract, there was a default corresponding to the Defendant’s refusal of performance.

In light of the above legal principles, the court below held that the defendant's primary claim of this case based on a different premise constitutes "cases where the purpose of the contract of this case can not be achieved" or "cases where the purpose of this case can not be achieved" due to defects in the subject matter of the contract of this case, the defendant's primary claim of this case cannot be accepted without the need for further review.

2. Determination on the conjunctive claim

A. The relationship between a seller (party to a contract) and a seller (party to a contract) was not at the site at the time when the above sales contract was prepared. The Plaintiff actually paid 30 million won out of the down payment specified in the contract to the Defendant. On May 4, 2016, the Plaintiff again confirmed the intent to sell D’s contract and agreed to pay the remainder down payment 34.3 million won to the Defendant. However, even on May 4, 2016, D is an agreement to pay the remainder down payment.