1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded by this court are all dismissed.

2...

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is as follows: (a) in the second page 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance, “the Plaintiff” is corrected to read “the Defendant”; and (b) in the third page 1, “the addition by September 13, 2013” is as follows: (c) the addition of the supplementary items between the fourth page 12 and 13 is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the supplementary items between the fourth page 12 and 13; and (d) thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Defendant’s obligation to transfer each ownership under each supply contract of this case was impossible by completing the registration of ownership transfer with respect to F and G (hereinafter “instant dispute stores”) among E-building neighborhood living facilities, and the Plaintiff cancelled each supply contract of this case by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case on this ground. As such, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages for KRW 147,00,000,000, which is the difference between the purchase price of the instant dispute stores and the purchase price of KRW 400,000,000, which is the difference between the Plaintiff (or the Plaintiff’s mother) and the purchase price of KRW 147,00,000,000 at the time of nonperformance of the contract.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 247,00,000 (=100,000,000 + 147,000,000) and damages for delay.

B. (1) Since the special terms and conditions of each of the instant supply contracts stipulate that “the Plaintiff shall not raise any objection, such as the return of down payment and the claim for damages,” the instant lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff is unlawful as it violates the subordinate claim.

D. Each supply contract of this case does not fall under the terms and conditions, and the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions (hereinafter “Terms and Conditions Act”) does not apply, and each supply contract of this case is the obligation of the Plaintiff to perform in advance.