1. Each appeal filed by the plaintiff and the defendant is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for adding the judgment on the plaintiff's argument as to this case, as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s additional assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant received 5.5 million won down payment from the Plaintiff, and received 946 million won from the buyers in the seven rooms arranged by the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant may rescind each of the instant parcelling-out investment contracts by returning the intermediate payment exceeding the said down payment to the Plaintiff or the buyer, but the obligation to return the intermediate payment arises as an effect of rescission of the contract, and the intermediate payment return cannot be deemed as an element for rescission of the contract. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

B. The plaintiff asserts that the contract cancellation is not subject to the contract cancellation, and only the part of the above four rooms, such as Q, R, S, and T, among the commercial buildings of this case in which the plaintiff arranged and completed the registration of transfer of ownership to a third party, and that the contract cancellation is effective. The contract deposit of the above four rooms is KRW 169,719,228 (=the total sum of the above four rooms 1,635,060,000 x 10.38%) and therefore, 118,863,459 won (=169,719,228 x 70%) which is 70% of the down payment (i.e., the total sum of the sale price of the above four rooms x 1,638%) should be deducted from the estimated sale price of this case.

On the other hand, each of the instant parcelling-out investment contracts was entirely rescinded by the Defendant’s declaration of intention of cancellation due to the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff, and the fact that the down payment that the Plaintiff paid was KRW 550,00,000 is the cause as seen earlier. In the case of confiscation due to cancellation, the total sum of the down payment is the estimated amount of damages and the reduction is made based on this, each of the instant parcelling-out investment contracts concluded on the premise of