1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff’s KRW 75,00,00 and KRW 50,00,000 out of the amount shall begin on November 3, 2017 with respect to the Defendant.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

[Attachment] On the 5th page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant added his assertion that the defendant added at the trial of the court of first instance and the judgment thereon are added as follows.

“The Defendant asserts that the act of the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his/her obligation due to the sales of the Defendant’s real estate, not the content of the instant contract, shall be deemed to be a refusal of performance. As such, the instant contract was rescinded by the Defendant’s lawful expression of intent for rescission. In cases of cancellation of contract due to the so-called “Refusal” where the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent not to perform in advance due to nonperformance, the requirements for cancellation of contract are mitigated when compared with the rescission of contract at the time of delay of performance because it does not require the other party’s peremptory notice or simultaneous performance. In addition, in cases where the Plaintiff explicitly expressed his/her intent for refusal of performance, the intention of refusal should be clearly acknowledged in light of the circumstances in order to recognize implied intention for refusal of performance by taking into account all the circumstances after the time of the instant contract or after the contract (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da77385, Feb. 10, 201). In light of the overall arguments stated in subparagraphs 4, 5, and 4, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the instant contract cannot be concluded to the Defendant.