The judgment below

The part of the damages compensation is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the court below held that the player agreement of this case was a non-exclusive contract with the intent to secure the Plaintiff’s supply of land and receive the Defendant’s advance payment, based on the following facts: (a) the player agreement of this case is effective as a contract for land purchase, which is a main contract; (b) the advance payment is stipulated to be replaced as part of the purchase price; and (c) the remainder excluding any remainder from the total payment exceeding KRW 130 billion is paid in advance before the conclusion of this contract; and (d) the player agreement of this case and the principal contract (the draft) presented by the Defendant cannot be seen as having a big difference with the remainder other than the timing of land use; and (b) the time of land use is an essential contract related to the Plaintiff’s feasibility review, financing plan, the contract conclusion, and the schedule of the sale contract; and (b) the time of delay damages and the content of the contract on the cancellation of the right to cancel the contract due to delay.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by misapprehending the nature of the player agreement or the legal principles on the interpretation of disposal documents, thereby delaying the timing of land use and causing the defendant's fault.