The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant’s payment of KRW 248,20,000 to the Plaintiff as the remainder under the instant sales contract; (b) the Plaintiff’s payment of the remainder was not made in full on November 23, 2012 through a copy of the instant complaint and a preparatory document, etc., and (c) the Defendant notified the Defendant of the payment of the remainder; and (d) the Defendant expressed his intent to cancel the instant sales contract on the ground of the Defendant’s delay in performance when the Defendant failed to perform the above obligation; (b) the Plaintiff’s demand for the payment of the remainder in excess of the amount actually to be paid by the Defendant; (c) the Plaintiff’s demand for the payment of the remainder in excess of the amount actually to be paid by the Defendant cannot be deemed a legitimate demand for the performance of the obligation under the instant sales contract; and (d) the Plaintiff’s payment of the remainder in excess of the amount to be paid by the Defendant is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff did not exercise the Plaintiff’s right of rescission or performance of the title trust.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are justifiable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the repayment defense, interpretation of

Therefore, it is therefore.