2. All of the counterclaim claims against the plaintiff of the defendant 1 corporation are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the portion arising between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant 1 Company is assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant), and the portion arising from the counterclaim is assessed against the Defendant 1 Company, respectively, and the portion arising between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant 2 Company is assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Counterclaim: The plaintiff shall pay to Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. 2,600,000,000 won and 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the counterclaim of this case to the day of complete payment (the plaintiff is selected to claim the agreed amount and claim the return of unjust enrichment).

The following facts may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 2-1, 3-2, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 2-2, 9, 13, 23, 34, 41, Eul evidence 3-2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 10, Eul evidence 4-2 through 6, Eul evidence 5-2, 5, 12, 19, Eul evidence 6-3, 6, 10, Eul evidence 6-1, 7-1, 8-1, Eul evidence 8-1, respectively:

A. 1) On June 16, 2005, Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. prepared a memorandum of understanding that in order to purchase from the Plaintiff each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”), buildings not yet completed on the land, and housing project rights in the name of the Plaintiff, the date of concluding the formal sale and purchase contract shall be June 30, 2005; the purchase price shall be 2.6 billion won; the down payment shall be 2.6 billion won; the down payment shall be paid at 2.6 billion won; and the remainder shall be paid at 50 billion won as the performance bond on August 31, 2005; and on the same day, Defendant 1 Co., Ltd shall not demand the postponement of the date of concluding the contract; and on the same day, Defendant 1 Co., Ltd shall not demand any change in the terms of the contract, such as the purchase price or the date of payment, etc., for any reason (Article 5).

2) On June 30, 2005, Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. entered into a regular sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Plaintiff on the entirety of the instant real estate and its ground buildings and housing business rights with the purchase price of 26 billion won. On the same day, Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. paid the remainder down payment of 2.1 billion won in substitution for the payment of down payment. The remainder of the purchase price without the intermediate payment was to be paid on August 31, 2005 without the intermediate payment in accordance with the purport of the above statement of understanding. The instant sales contract provides that “The purchase price shall be paid at the seat of the Plaintiff’s principal office, and Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. may substitute it by unilaterally cancelling the contract by transferring online to the account designated by the Plaintiff. Where Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. passes the remainder payment date, the Plaintiff may not demand the return of down payment (Article 14(1) main sentence; hereinafter “Defendant 1”) to the Plaintiff for a reasonable period of time to cancel the contract.”

3) However, on August 29, 2005, Defendant 1 requested the Plaintiff to extend the remainder payment date by September 15, 2005 pursuant to the proviso of Article 1(4) of the instant sales contract, and the Plaintiff accepted the request and extended the remainder payment date by September 15, 2005. However, Defendant 1 Company failed to pay the remainder by September 15, 2005. Defendant 1 Company again requested the Plaintiff to extend the remainder payment date by September 22, 2005, but the Plaintiff refused the request for extension. However, the Plaintiff refused the request for extension, from September 17, 2005 to September 19, 2005, the construction business entity, such as the Plaintiff, was required to pay the remainder payment date.

4) On September 20, 2005, the Plaintiff notified Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. of the rescission of the instant sales contract, as Defendant 1 did not pay any balance.

5) On September 21, 2005, Defendant 1 corporation expressed its intent to pay the remainder to the Plaintiff on the following day, but the Plaintiff did not comply with the instant sales contract by asserting that the instant sales contract was terminated by the notice of cancellation.

B. 1) Around October 2005, Defendant 1 filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the registration of ownership transfer against the Plaintiff, asserting that the cancellation of the instant sales contract is unlawful, and around October 2005, Defendant 1 filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the registration of ownership transfer regarding the instant real estate as Busan District Court 2005Kahap19913. The claim for the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale and purchase prior to the filing of the lawsuit was a preserved right, and the Daegu District Court Magna District Court Magna rendered a provisional disposition on September 27, 2005 (Magna Branch Branch of Daegu District Court 2005Kadan4182).

2) Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. filed a claim for ownership transfer registration, and (1) the remaining payment date was extended on September 22 of the same year upon Defendant 1’s second extension request on September 15, 2005, and even if not, on September 21, 2005, before the Plaintiff’s notice of termination of the contract reached Defendant 1 Co., Ltd.’s delivery of the remaining payment amount to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff asserted that Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. was liable for the execution of the procedure for ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate (hereinafter “the first chapter”) and ② the Plaintiff’s notice of the termination of the contract was made on September 20, 2005 to Defendant 1 Co., Ltd., without a reasonable time limit for performance as to the Defendant 1 Co., Ltd.’s second extension request; and (2) the sales contract still remains valid on the ground that the relationship between Defendant 1’s duty to pay the remaining payment amount and the Plaintiff’s obligation to provide concurrent performance.

3) However, in the case of objection to the principal lawsuit and provisional disposition in the first instance trial, there is no evidence to prove that the payment date of the sales contract in this case was extended by September 22, 2005, and it rejected all Chapters 1 and 2 of the first and second copies of the defendant 1 corporation on the ground that the plaintiff may rescind the sales contract in this case without a separate performance peremptory notice under the rescission agreement in this case as long as the first extended payment date of the remainder has passed without paying the remainder of the defendant 1 corporation.

4) Accordingly, Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. appealed and filed an application for provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of the instant real estate again on June 16, 2006 (Seoul High Court Decision 2006Kahap25).

5) In Busan High Court Decision 2006Na9484, the appellate court, the second week of the defendant 1 corporation, cannot be deemed as an agreement to the effect that the contract of cancellation in this case can be unilaterally terminated regardless of whether the obligation to transfer ownership, etc., in the simultaneous performance relationship is performed or not if the payment date of the remainder exists. In order to cancel the contract of this case on the ground that the plaintiff's delay in the remainder payment obligation of the defendant 1 corporation, the appellate court should have prepared documents necessary for the transfer of ownership, etc., of the real estate between September 15, 2005 and September 20, 2005, which notified the cancellation of the contract of this case from September 20, 2005, and should have caused the defendant 1 corporation to delay in performance by providing legitimate performance, such as notification of the transfer of ownership, etc. to the defendant 1 corporation. Thus, since the plaintiff did not provide legitimate performance for his opposite debt in the simultaneous performance relationship and the defendant 1 corporation was not notified of the contract of this case.

6) However, the Supreme Court, which was the final appeal, concluded the instant sales contract and agreed to pay all the remainder of the sales price except the down payment without intermediate payment until August 31, 2005. In this sense, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant 1 corporation agreed to cancel the instant sales contract with the intent of the Plaintiff to be at disadvantage even if the Plaintiff unilaterally cancelled the contract if the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder of the sales price, excluding the down payment, by its day, and on the sole basis of the Plaintiff’s notice of cancellation, the first extended payment date was passed by Defendant 1 corporation, regardless of whether or not the Plaintiff’s submission of necessary documents, such as ownership transfer registration, etc., at the time of the notice of cancellation, and the above Busan High Court judgment, which was the original judgment, reversed the above Busan High Court judgment on the ground that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the interpretation of the instant sales contract and the cancellation of the sales contract (Supreme Court Decision 2007Da5766), and eventually, the Busan High Court Decision 2007Na21801, which was dismissed.

C.1) In addition, Defendant 1 Co., Ltd., separate from the lawsuit claiming the above transfer registration of ownership, asserts that the Plaintiff was negligent in performing its duties by refusing to receive the balance of the sales contract of this case. Accordingly, Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit claiming damages against the Plaintiff on February 2006, Busan District Court 2006Gahap2981, and filed a lawsuit claiming damages against the Plaintiff on December 16, 2006. The above claim for damages prior to the filing of the lawsuit was filed for provisional attachment against Busan District Court 5202 m2.8m2, which was owned by the Plaintiff to Busan District Court on December 16, 2005 (the Busan District Court 2005Kadan357477).

2) Although Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. had Chapters 1 and 2 in the above lawsuit for damages, it was sentenced that all of the arguments of Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. were rejected in the above lawsuit in the first instance court. The appellate court rendered a judgment of dismissal of an appeal (Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na9491), and the Supreme Court rendered a judgment of dismissal of an appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2007Da583 Decided dismissal) against Defendant 1 Co., Ltd., respectively, and the judgment of dismissal

D. Meanwhile, Defendant 1 Company filed with the Plaintiff a claim against the Plaintiff for a housing construction project owner and the contractor’s right to claim for the change of name as a preserved right, and received a decision on temporary injunction for change of name on October 12, 2005 (U.S. District Court 2005Kahap2575).

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 1 Company

A. Determination on this safety defense

Defendant 1’s assertion to the effect that the principal lawsuit of this case is unlawful, since there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 Company to withdraw the lawsuit, it is difficult to believe that the result of the principal examination of the representative of Defendant 1 Company as seen so that the principal lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and it is insufficient to recognize the fact that there was an agreement to withdraw the lawsuit between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 Company on the sole basis of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 9 through 11, and evidence Nos. 12-1, 2, and 13 and 14 of evidence Nos. 13 and 10 of A, respectively, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the safety defense of this case is without merit.

B. Judgment on the merits

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff asserts that since the execution of an unfair preservative measure by the defendant 1 corporation has interrupted the plaintiff's joint housing and commercial building sale plan, the plaintiff suffered losses of expected business profit of KRW 8,470,000,000, and financial expenses of KRW 630,000,000, and the defendant 1 corporation suffered losses of KRW 849,175,000,000, which are part of the cost of restoring retaining wall removal and removal according to the cancellation of the approval of the project plan, as well as the above losses of KRW 200,00,000, which are part of the cost of restoring retaining wall removal and removal according to the cancellation of the approval of the project.

(ii) the board;

A) Although preservative measures such as provisional attachment and provisional disposition are executed by the court's trial, the issue of whether there exists a substantive claim shall be entrusted to the lawsuit on the merits and shall be subject to the creditor's responsibility. Thus, if the execution creditor after the execution of preservative measures has become final and conclusive against the lawsuit on the merits, it shall be presumed that the execution creditor has intention or negligence with respect to the damage incurred to the debtor due to execution of such preservative measures, and therefore, he/she shall be liable to compensate for the damage incurred due to such unfair execution (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da46184, Sept. 24, 2002, etc.). However, if the execution creditor of preservative measures which have been decided against the lawsuit on the merits does not vary in factual relations, but the legal interpretation or interpretation of a sales contract and the cancellation of a sales contract are based on the difference in the evaluation, and if the legal opinion of the execution creditor was cited in the second instance court and the principal lawsuit on the merits, the execution creditor shall not be deemed to have been negligent in the execution creditor's right (see Supreme Court Decision 1907Da18508.

B) The fact that Defendant 1 was rendered a final judgment against the Plaintiff in each lawsuit on the merits filed by Defendant 1 Company is as seen earlier, and thus, it is presumed that Defendant 1 Company had intention or negligence with respect to the Plaintiff’s damages incurred due to the execution of each preservative measure.

However, according to the above facts, the contract of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 corporation regarding the right to be preserved, and the legal interpretation of the contract of this case and the contract of this case and the contract of this case cancellation again, and the contract of this case cancellation is interpreted again, even though the contract of this case cancellation includes that the plaintiff can unilaterally cancel the contract when the contract of this case has expired, even though the contract of this case can not be seen as an agreement that the contract of this cancellation can be unilaterally cancelled without providing the buyer's performance, such as preparing documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership and informing the buyer at the due date, it cannot be seen as an agreement that the contract of this cancellation can be unilaterally cancelled without providing the buyer's performance. The above contract of this case's cancellation is based on the legal interpretation or evaluation that the seller can cancel the contract of this case only when he had caused the buyer's delay in performance, but the above contract of this case to the defendant 1 corporation was rejected without paying the remaining purchase price by the due date, and it is reasonable to see that the plaintiff 16 of this case's lawsuit cancellation of this case's special agreement of this case's.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s main claim against Defendant 1 Company is without merit to examine the scope of damages.

3. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against defendant 2 corporation

The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant 2 and Defendant 1 Company sought payment of KRW 100,000,00, which is a part of the above amount, to the Plaintiff jointly and severally with Defendant 1 Company, since Defendant 2 guaranteed liability for damages against the Plaintiff based on each of the above preservative measures within the scope of KRW 1,177,078,08,087. Thus, as seen earlier, Defendant 2 Company did not recognize the obligation to compensate for damages against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.

4. Determination on the counterclaim claim against the plaintiff of defendant 1 corporation

A. Determination on the claim for agreed amount

Defendant 1 corporation agreed to refund KRW 2,60,00,000, which the Plaintiff received from Defendant 1 corporation around July 2008. Thus, the Plaintiff asserted that Defendant 1 corporation is liable to pay the said KRW 2,600,000,000 and damages for delay, and thus, it is difficult to believe the result of Defendant 1’s personal examination by the representative of Defendant 1 corporation, who appears to correspond thereto, and it is insufficient to recognize the fact of the above agreement only with the descriptions in subparagraphs 9 through 11, Eul’s evidence Nos. 9 through 12, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 13 and 14, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above assertion by Defendant 1 corporation is without merit.

B. Determination on the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment

(1) Summary of the assertion

Meanwhile, Defendant 1 corporation asserts that, in light of various circumstances such as the fact that the contract deposit, which did not return under the rescission agreement of this case, falls under the estimated amount of compensation for damages, the amount of the purchase price of this case and the down payment is large, that is only two months from the sales contract date to the payment date, and that the rescission agreement of this case is an unfavorable provision against Defendant 1 corporation, the total amount or most amount should be returned as unjust enrichment.

(2) Determination:

(A) Under Article 398(1) of the Civil Act, a penalty for breach of contract is an estimate of the amount of damages under Article 398(1) of the Civil Act, and Article 398(2) of the Civil Act provides that where the estimated amount of damages is unreasonably excessive, the court may reduce the estimated amount of damages to a reasonable extent. Here, “unfairly excessive amount” means cases where the payment of the estimated amount of damages is deemed to bring about the loss of fairness by giving unreasonable pressure to the debtor in the position of the economically weak in light of the general social concept, taking into account all the circumstances such as the status of the creditor and the debtor, purpose and content of the contract, motives and contents scheduled for the amount of damages, the anticipated motive of the liquidated amount of damages, the ratio of estimated amount of damages, the estimated amount of damages, the amount of expected damages, the transaction practices at the time of the settlement of the fact-finding trial, and the economic condition, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da3534, Jul. 22, 2004).

(B) As to the instant case, it is a general business practice to determine the estimated amount of compensation equivalent to 10% of the contract amount as the estimated amount of compensation for damages in real estate sales contract, construction contract, etc. between individuals. The down payment of the instant sales contract also corresponds to 10% of the total purchase amount, and ② although the contract amount confiscated is a large amount of money, it is not because the contract amount was set unfairly high, but it is a large amount of money to 26,000,000 won, and there is a possibility of gaining enormous profits through such large amount of transactions, but there is a possibility of gaining enormous profits, but the risk of corresponding losses is also to be borne. ③ Defendant 1 corporation at the time of concluding the instant sales contract, unless there is any circumstance to deem that it was the status of the economically weak compared to the Plaintiff, ④ it is difficult to deem that the outstanding payment date stipulated in the instant sales contract was particularly unreasonable, ⑤ The Plaintiff’s delayed payment date of the remainder for 15 days, and ⑤ it cannot be unreasonable to assert the above estimated amount of compensation for damages without any specific reason.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's principal lawsuit against the defendant 1 corporation and the defendant 2 corporation, and the plaintiff's counterclaim against the defendant 1 corporation are dismissed for each reason. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] List of Real Estate: omitted

Judges Park Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)