1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On November 10, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she concluded a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase approximately KRW 90,000 (total purchase price of KRW 495,830,00) per square meter for approximately KRW 90,00 (total purchase price of KRW 495,830,000) of D forest land, KRW 10,000 per square meter, E forest land, KRW 10,19 square meter, and KRW 4,245 square meter for F forest land (hereinafter “each of the instant land”). The written contract was written following the date.

The Plaintiff transferred the down payment KRW 100 million to the Defendant according to the above sales contract.

After that, the Defendant, on November 13, 2015, announced that the new airport was entered near each of the instant land, the Defendant: (a) on November 13, 2015, sold only the shares of the Plaintiff at KRW 110,000,000 to the Plaintiff; and (b) on the other hand, the Plaintiff would terminate the sales contract without acceptance by the Plaintiff; and (c) on the other hand, the Plaintiff, who did not immediately accept it, deposited KRW

The defendant clearly expresses his/her intention to refuse to refuse performance, and the down payment of KRW 100 million can be regarded as a penalty in light of transactional practice. Therefore, he/she seeks the payment of penalty of KRW 100 million and damages for delay against the defendant.

2. In order to deem that a sales contract for real estate for the determination of the Plaintiff’s assertion was concluded, the intent on important matters in the conclusion of the contract, such as the subject matter of sale, the sales price, the down payment, and the balance payment, shall be finally consistent. In this case, the intent on important matters in the conclusion of the contract, such as the subject matter of sale and the sales

According to the statement No. 1 and the purport of the entire testimony and pleading by the witness G, the Defendant, around November 10, 2015, listened to the Plaintiff’s prior intent to purchase each of the instant land and delivered the content that he would sell shares to other co-owners, while expressing his intention to sell shares. The Defendant paid the purchase price of each of the instant land.