A. On March 23, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for the purchase of KRW 289,000,000 for the purchase price of KRW 289,00,00 during the period of Ansan-si owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant purchase”).

B. The instant sales contract was concluded under the brokerage of licensed real estate agents D, and the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant on the date of conclusion of the instant sales contract, and the remainder of KRW 259,000,000 was determined to be paid on May 11, 2015.

C. The Defendant entered into the instant sales contract and returned to several times, and found to be a licensed real estate agent office operated by D, and expressed the intent to cancel the instant sales contract, and returned KRW 30,000,000, which was received from the Plaintiff, to the employee who operated the licensed real estate agent office with D, and the employee returned it to the Plaintiff.

On March 25, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail to the effect that the Plaintiff, the buyer, could achieve the purpose of the instant sales contract due to the Defendant’s unilateral rescission, claiming KRW 30,000,000 under the pretext of cancellation.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, Witness D's testimony and purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination

A. In the bilateral contract in which both parties have simultaneously performed their obligations, where one of the parties has expressed in advance his/her own intent not to perform his/her obligations, the other party may rescind the contract without demanding performance or providing his/her own obligation. Whether the other party has expressed his/her intention not to perform the obligation should be determined by examining the behavior of the parties as to the execution of the contract and the specific circumstances after the conclusion of the contract.

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Da8374 delivered on March 27, 1991, etc.). According to the health care unit and the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is the case.