1. All appeals filed by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff and the Defendant-Counterclaim Claim filed in the trial are dismissed.

2...

1. The reasoning of this court’s acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to adding the following judgments, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main text

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s rescission by the delivery of a preparatory document as of January 27, 2016, as of the instant case, applies only to the case where the Plaintiff did not perform its obligations. Since the Plaintiff was unable to pay the agreed amount by the extended deadline, the Defendant’s sale of the instant land was a cause attributable to the Plaintiff, and accordingly, the Defendant’s obligation to transfer the instant land was omitted due to the impossibility of performing its obligations due to the cause attributable to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 546 of the Civil Act. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the instant agreement is rescinded by the delivery of the instant preparatory document for the reason that the cause attributable to the Plaintiff is impossible.

However, there is no ground to view that the automatic extinguishment clause stipulated in Article 11 subparagraph 1 of the instant agreement applies only to cases where the Plaintiff is unable to perform his/her obligations due to a cause attributable to the obligor. Article 546 of the Civil Act provides for the obligee’s right of rescission in cases where the obligor becomes unable to perform his/her obligations due to a cause attributable to the obligor. Even according to the Defendant’s assertion, it is not the obligor’s duty, but the obligor’s duty, the obligee, and it is difficult

B. In the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant violated the good faith principle, the Defendant asserted that: (a) the Plaintiff did not pay the agreed amount up to the extended time limit after paying only KRW 100 million out of the agreed amount of KRW 10 billion; (b) thereafter, the Defendant paid the subscription amount in the new land sale announcement procedure; and (c) the Defendant did not raise any objection despite again informing once again of the cancellation on March 20, 2013.

(b).