1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 354,708,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 23, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. The parties' assertion that the plaintiff purchased Nos. 705, 706 from the defendant to pay KRW 354,708,00 as down payment and intermediate payment. Each of the above rooms argues to the purport that the area is different from the content of the contract or is not a separate registration registration, and that the compulsory auction procedure is in progress while the compulsory auction procedure is in progress in the course of the establishment of the right to collateral security over the amount of KRW 100,000,000, as the sale of other rights or changes in circumstances, the above sales contract is revoked and the above down payment and intermediate payment are to be returned.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer (right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer) of the above room (right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer) was transferred from B to the Plaintiff as it is, there is no responsibility for disagreements such as the area. Rather, since the actual area under subparagraph 705 is larger than the total area under the contract of the above room (right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer) is larger than that under the above subparagraphs, there is no disadvantage to the Plaintiff. The Defendant asserted to the effect that there

2. The fact that the performance of the judgment on the cause of the claim is impossible is not simply absolute and physical impossibility, but it is difficult for the creditor to expect the realization of the debtor's performance in light of the experience rules or transaction norms in the social life;

(2) In addition, Article 570 of the Civil Act does not require a strict interpretation to the extent that the so-called “transferability of ownership” in the sale and purchase of another person’s right is the same as that of the nonperformance of obligation, and it does not require a strict interpretation as to the buyer’s right to rescission or claim damages to the buyer under social norms.