The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s rejection of the Defendant’s claim for rescission of a contract on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the rules of evidence, misapprehending the legal principles on prior confession, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations

2. As to the claim for damages

A. The lower court: (a) concluded the instant purchase contract with the Defendant to purchase KRW 40,200,000 for the purchase price of the instant apartment from the Defendant; (b) paid KRW 40,200,000 on the day of the contract; and (c) additionally paid KRW 7,00,000 at the Defendant’s request on April 18, 201; (d) agreed to pay the purchase price of the instant apartment in full from the instant purchase contract to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff failed to pay the purchase price; (c) the Defendant received a loan from the Jeoncheon-gu Saemaul Bank on July 8, 2011 and paid the intermediate payment in full; and (d) completed the construction of the instant apartment bank on September 27, 2013 with the loan of KRW 174,00,000 (hereinafter “the instant loan”); and (d) concluded the instant construction of the instant apartment bank on the date of completion inspection under the name of the Defendant and the instant construction of the instant apartment bank on May 18, 2013, etc.

Furthermore, the lower court did not repay the instant loan in order to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer registration of the instant apartment complex, where the Defendant, the debtor of the instant loan, did not repay the instant loan. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot do so.