1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked:

2...

1. The reasons why the court is to use this part of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: “Article 3-1(a)(2)(2)(a)(2)(i.e., “Article 3-12(a)(ii)(i.e., “Article 3-3(c)(iv)(ii)(i.e., “Article 2-2-b(b)”; and (ii) “Article 3-3(c)(iv)(i)(ii)(i.e., “Article 2-2(b)(ii)(i., adding the judgment of the plaintiff in the court of first instance to paragraph 3(s),

2. The part to be dried;

[2) As to the cancellation of the instant sales contract, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant has the legal interest equivalent to the amount of the pre-sale payment under Article 548(2) of the Civil Act against the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity due to subrogation against the Defendant and the Defendant’s claim for restitution against the Plaintiff, which are non-fixed due to all the due date, were in offset upon the arrival of the due date of March 25, 2013, which is the date of cancellation of the instant sales contract against the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s written brief dated July 28, 2014, which was served on the Plaintiff on July 29, 2014 】 (i) 50% of the total amount of the above claims against the Plaintiff 】 60% of the total amount of the intermediate payment received by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant, 205% of the total amount of the intermediate payment 】 160% of the total amount of the intermediate payment 】 50% of the total of KRW 16065% of the date of the intermediate payment.

The claim for restitution equivalent to the amount of the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement has been extinguished within the extent of equal amount with KRW 28,330,454, and the defendant ultimately pays to the plaintiff.