1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

With respect to this case, this court's explanation is the same as the written judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following changes. Thus, this court's explanation is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The actual contents of the proceedings shall be e.g. decision of the first instance court.

The portion of the phrase "project operator" in the letter of promise to pay the amount under the paragraph shall be changed to "the plaintiff."

The actual contents of the case shall be amended as follows: (a) in the case of this case, the part “(2)” in Part 6 of the judgment of the first instance court.

(2) In the instant case, based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the evidence revealed prior to the recognition of the instant case, evidence Nos. 12, evidence Nos. 12, and evidence Nos. 1 and 3 through 6 (including each number, if any), and the following facts and circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the appraisal commission to the appraiser G of the first instance court, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, such as the evidence Nos. 1 and 13, cannot be deemed to constitute an unfair legal act because there exists a significant imbalance between the payment and the consideration for the instant agreement.

Therefore, while the plaintiff's main claim seeking confirmation of invalidity of the agreement of this case is without merit, while the defendant's counterclaim seeking payment of 400 million won and damages for delay pursuant to the agreement of this case is with merit.

(1) The instant agreement also includes related persons for the construction of officetels, such as a contractor and a trust company. It is sufficient to view that the instant agreement took into account the price fluctuations following the long-term delay in the purchase of the project site and the economic feasibility, etc. following the construction of officetels.

② In addition, the Defendant reported on the suspension of business relating to the telecom around June 30, 2014 after the second sales contract and appears to have failed to obtain income from the lease of a building from around that time, and the period of approximately three years and eight months from the first sales contract to the remainder payment was required.