1. As to the real estate stated in the attached list to the Plaintiff, the Defendant received on July 26, 2017 from the Incheon District Court No. 271041.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 25, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a sales contract with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant loan”) at KRW 98 million, with the purchase price fixed. The Plaintiff first transferred the ownership of the instant loan to the Defendant, and the Defendant agreed to pay the said purchase price within one week from the date of registration of transfer of ownership.

B. On July 26, 2017, the Plaintiff cancelled the registration of the establishment of a mortgage for the lending of this case, the maximum debt amount of 38,400,000 won, and the establishment of a neighboring agricultural cooperative, South-do, an agricultural cooperative, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security. On the same day, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of the lending of this case under the Incheon District Court No. 271041, Jul. 26, 2017

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the sales contract of this case was cancelled due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of the obligation to pay the purchase price, and the Plaintiff filed a claim for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration on the loan of this case, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s rescission based on the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation is unreasonable, since the Defendant agreed to postpone the payment date as of the end

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to extend the payment date of the purchase price by the end of December 2017 is not acceptable, on the grounds that there was no dispute between the parties that the date one week elapsed from the date of the registration of transfer of the ownership of the instant loan ( August 1, 2017) and the date of the payment of the purchase price.

According to the evidence adopted earlier, the Plaintiff appears to have notified the Defendant of the payment of the purchase price before filing the instant lawsuit, and even if not, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff served a duplicate of the instant complaint to have notified the Defendant of the payment of the purchase price.

However, the defendant has a reasonable period of time.