A. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant (former Mutual Co., Ltd. E) (hereinafter “instant contract”) under which the Plaintiff agreed to newly build and sell a canal well, which is a canal well for foreigners’ residence in the Republic of Korea at Asan City, and paid part of the purchase price thereof to the Defendant.

Amount of KRW 1,00,000 (including value-added tax) 1,000 on July 27, 2016, as of July 27, 2016, as of July 27, 2016, KRW 20,000 (including KRW 39,000,000 on July 27, 2016) (as of July 28, 2016) (as of July 28, 2016) (60,000,000 (as of July 29, 2016) (as of August 16, 2016) for the first intermediate payment of KRW 100,00,000 (including KRW 100,000 on intermediate payment of KRW 16,00,000 (including KRW 7, 200).

B. The instant contract shall be determined on July 201 as “the date scheduled for occupancy and the date scheduled for the payment of the balance (if it is somewhat changed according to the process)” and on June 30, 2017, which is the date on which the payment of the balance is completed (Article 1). The instant contract may be rescinded where the Plaintiff becomes unable to move into within three months from the scheduled date of occupancy due to the Defendant’s cause attributable to the Defendant (Article 2(2)), and where the contract is rescinded for such cause, the Defendant shall pay 10% of the total purchase price to the Plaintiff as penalty (Article 2(2).

(Article 3(2)) was set forth.

C. Upon the application for the instant payment order, the Plaintiff became unable to move into the Plaintiff due to its failure to complete construction until June 30, 2017, which was the scheduled date for moving into the Plaintiff.

“For the reason that the instant contract was rescinded pursuant to Article 2(2) of the instant contract, and the original copy of the instant payment order was served on March 9, 2018 to the Defendant.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the contract of this case was lawfully rescinded according to the plaintiff's exercise of the right of rescission of contract at the time when the original copy of the payment order of this case stating the plaintiff's declaration of rescission was delivered to the

Therefore, the defendant is therefore the case.