2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is 127,000.

A. On August 18, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a sales contract with the purport that the Plaintiff would sell real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) to the Defendant for KRW 680 million (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The instant sales contract states that: (a) on August 21, 2018, the intermediate payment of KRW 60 million is KRW 240 million; and (b) on October 31, 2018, the remainder of KRW 380 million is paid respectively on January 31, 2019; and (c) as a special agreement, the said contract states that “The remainder date shall be front of the intermediate payment at the front time under mutual agreement” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant special agreement”).

C. By August 21, 2018, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff a down payment of KRW 60 million, and again paid KRW 20 million out of the intermediate payment to the Plaintiff on September 27, 2018.

On October 1, 2018, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the cancellation of the instant sales contract on the ground of nonperformance of obligation, against the Defendant’s first payment of part payments, rather than the payment of part payments.

E. On October 31, 2018, the Defendant deposited the remainder intermediate payment of KRW 220 million with the Seoul Northern District Court on the ground of the Plaintiff’s refusal to receive payment.

F. Meanwhile, the instant real estate was completed by the registration office of the Seoul Northern District Court (Seoul Northern District Court) on June 15, 2016, the maximum debt amount of KRW 250,000,000,000 (hereinafter “the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage”) under Article 50822, and the Plaintiff was to cancel the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage at the same time as the remainder payment was made.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the sales contract of this case was terminated

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s advance payment of part payments is contrary to the instant special agreement that prevents the payment of part payments in advance, and even if otherwise interpreted, it does not constitute 10% of part payments.