1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the “instant supply contract” under Section 9 of the fifth sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed as the “instant parcelling-out contract,” and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance

However, the following judgments are added to the defendant's argument in this court.

2. The defendant asserts that the contract of this case was concluded independently from the contract of this case, so the plaintiff can rescind the contract of this case on the ground that the contract of this case was not settled.

Where multiple contracts have been concluded, whether the entire contract is indivisible as it is a single contract should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the details and purpose of the conclusion of the contract, the intent of the parties, etc.

(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da115120 Decided May 9, 2013). The instant sales contract does not stipulate the terms and conditions of profits, and only the unpaid balance and the non-performance of delivery of the exercise of time are stipulated as reasons for cancellation.

However, as seen earlier, the instant sales contract was concluded for the purpose of acquiring profits from the instant sales contract rather than the ownership of the guest room, and the instant sales contract was concluded on the premise that the transfer registration of ownership pursuant to the instant sales contract should be completed, in light of the developments and contents of the instant sales contract and the instant sales contract, it shall be deemed that the instant sales contract and the instant sales contract are integrated into an indivisible relationship such as one contract, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected on a different premise.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is justified.