The case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The original judgment recognized that the non-party borrowed 243,00 won from the plaintiff in the name of prior notice on the receipt of the above purchase price was offset against the amount equal to the balance of the purchase price in this case. However, according to Article 11 (1) 3 of the Buddhist Property Management Act, if the non-party intends to borrow the above loan (excluding the temporary loan repaid with revenues within the fiscal year in question) within the scope of its budget for the operation of inspection, the court below should have obtained permission from the competent agency. Further, the court below should have reviewed whether the above loan was granted temporary loan repayment with revenues within the fiscal year in question, whether it was permitted by the competent agency, and whether it was permitted by the competent agency. Furthermore, in the case of the above case where the defendant completely denied the above purchase price payment, the court below should have deliberated and decided by exercising the right of explanation as to whether the above avoidance was the purport of asserting the simultaneous performance defense, but the court below did not reach this point and recognized that the above loan was offset against the balance of the purchase price in this case and did not exhaust all necessary deliberations. It did not err in the judgment.

Therefore, according to the consistent opinion of the participating judges, the remaining grounds of appeal are omitted, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court which is the original judgment for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-Japon and Han Jae-gu.