1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid in addition to the following amounts shall be maintained.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Parts] The following shall be added to the 3rd 18th 18th 18 of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance.

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s performance of obligations, other than delivery, should be made at the present address of the obligee, and that the Plaintiff’s performance of obligations pursuant to the instant sales contract cannot be deemed lawful performance. However, on October 22, 2015, with respect to the Plaintiff’s notification of the performance of obligations pursuant to the instant sales contract at the MA’s office on the payment date of the remainder at the MA’s office on October 30, 2015, it appears that the Defendant did not raise an objection to the place of performance by October 30, 2015, which was the payment date of the remainder. Rather, according to the video of the evidence No. 3, according to the video of the evidence No. 3, the Defendant can be recognized as having responded to the Plaintiff’s performance at the place designated by the Plaintiff until November 3, 2015, which was the payment date of the remainder, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff intended to pay the remainder at the MA’s office as unlawful.

After the 4th 10th 10 statement in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, “the testimony of the witness and the witness N in the trial” shall be added.

The testimony of a witness at the trial shall be added after "each entry" of the 4th 13th 13 main reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance.

[Attachment] The 5th to 6th 18th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e.

B. The fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 40,000,00 to the Defendant as the down payment under the instant sales contract due to the scope of one contract rescission, and the fact that the instant sales contract was lawfully rescinded.