2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On September 27, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to purchase a total of KRW 563m2 in the purchase price of KRW 153,00,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with Defendant and Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant land”), and paid KRW 15,300,000 to the Defendant at the time of the contract deposit, and the remainder KRW 137,70,000 shall be paid until October 27, 2016.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed in the instant sales contract that “In the absence of a special agreement, the down payment shall be deemed as the basis for damages for the cancellation of the contract” (Article 6), and that “the prior seller shall be liable for all matters arising in relation to the matters of authorization and permission during the construction work after purchase of the land.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant special agreement”). C.

On October 5, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to construct a wooden house with KRW 120,000,000 as construction price for D and the said land, and paid KRW 10,000,000 as down payment to D.

On October 24, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant sales contract was cancelled on the ground that “the land category for the construction of a house has not been changed to a road, and that road usage fees should be paid separately.” On November 7, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant sales contract was cancelled on the ground that “the Plaintiff had not paid the remainder by the due date for the payment of the remainder.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the construction of the housing became impossible because the defendant failed to perform his/her duty under the special agreement of this case, and the sales contract of this case was cancelled. In addition, since the plaintiff was confiscated KRW 10,000,000, which was paid to D due to the defendant's non-performance, the defendant shall be restored to its original state.