1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall receive KRW 10,000,000 from the plaintiff at the same time.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the case as described below, and thus, this case is quoted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the second instance judgment, the following shall be added to the second instance judgment of the first instance.

Although the Plaintiff asserts that the sales contract of this case is revoked on the ground of the Defendant’s nonperformance of the obligation to pay the remainder, the Plaintiff’s assertion is not clear, and as long as the Plaintiff accepted the claim for cancellation of the sales contract of this case, it is not determined separately.

(3) On the ground of the first instance judgment, the first instance judgment No. 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1

As of 2019, the Plaintiff suffered damages of KRW 3,413,570, the difference between KRW 11,586,430, which is the first instance judgment and the sales amount of KRW 15,00,000, which the Plaintiff would have received as the instant sales contract. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the damages amounting to KRW 3,413,570 as a performance of the liability for damages, and the damages for delay thereof. In addition to the third instance judgment of the first instance judgment, the following is added.

Even if the defendant is liable to implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer, the plaintiff also has the obligation to return to the defendant at the same time the amount of KRW 13 million paid to the defendant. From No. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance to No. 12 to No. 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant

Therefore, as a performance of the duty to restore the ownership following the cancellation of the instant sales contract, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer, which was completed in the name of the Defendant, to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff paid KRW 3 million to the Defendant, not the purchase price, but the expenses for the registration of ownership transfer, which was paid to the Defendant as a group for the registration of ownership transfer. As such, the Defendant paid the expenses that