Part 3, 10 to 13 are as follows:

“4) At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, C paid the down payment of KRW 636 million to the Defendant, and around May 14, 2007, partially delivered the instant commercial building from the Defendant as an office or leased it to a third party.

Part 5 at the bottom of the second "N of the witness" N of the first instance trial hereinafter referred to as "N of the witness."

‘Faly-friendly’.

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) Since the instant sales contract was cancelled due to the Defendant’s cause attributable to the Defendant, it should be returned to C by restitution the down payment of KRW 636 million. If, even if the contract was cancelled due to cause attributable to C, it is unfair to confiscate the down payment in whole as follows, and some of them are subject to restitution due to cancellation of contract, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return. (A) Of the sales proceeds of the instant commercial building, KRW 1.5 billion out of the sales proceeds of the instant commercial building, was added and settled in consideration of the expected amount of transfer income arising from land purchase and sale.

However, it is unreasonable to confiscate KRW 150,000,000, which is a part of the above additional amount, out of the down payment paid by the Plaintiff, since the transfer income tax has been proved to be almost little.

In addition, the down payment includes 26 million won, which is the part of the value-added tax on the sales of the commercial building of this case, and the value-added tax is generated when the sales of the commercial building of this case was normally conducted, so the above 26 million won should also be returned as long as the sales contract of the commercial building of this case was rescinded.

B. 176 million won corresponding to the estimated amount of capital gains tax settlement and value added tax.