1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded in the trial are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal and the costs of appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 24, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract on the transfer of real estate rights (Evidence A; hereinafter “instant contract”) with the content that the Defendant would pay KRW 5 million to the Defendant for the remainder on the date of the contract and February 30, 2014. The Plaintiff paid KRW 5 million to the Defendant a down payment of KRW 40 million for the lease deposit and KRW 2.4 million for the monthly rent.

The above contract contains an additional clause that "the defendant grants a third party a deposit of KRW 40 million and monthly rent of KRW 2.4 million on the date the plaintiff designates the third party as the date when the plaintiff designates the re-sale city," which states that "the defendant grants a lease contract of KRW 2.4 million."

B. On February 5, 2014, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail to the Defendant to the effect that the instant contract will be rescinded on the grounds of the Defendant’s nonperformance, and the said content-certified document reached the Defendant on February 6, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number in the case with a serial number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. In the first place, at the time of the instant contract, the Defendant agreed to cooperate with the instant public notice board to implement a sprinkler installation work and to dispose of it again to a third party, and the Plaintiff obtained a building owner’s consent with respect to the installation of a sprinkler in the public notice board building, but the Plaintiff failed to do so due to the failure of the building owner’s consent. In the disposition of the public notice board, it is essential to install a sprinkler under the Fire Services Act and the Fire Services Act and subordinate statutes, and thus, it is the principal obligation for the Defendant to obtain a building owner’s consent. As the Defendant failed to perform such obligation, the Plaintiff rescinded the instant contract.