1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined

A. The Plaintiff 1) decided to leave the instant commercial building by August 29, 2016. On August 30, 2016, the Defendant, without leaving the instant commercial building, went to the late withdrawal and delivery date. Even if the instant sales contract was not rescinded due to the Defendant’s delay of performance, considering the above circumstances, at least the Defendant’s obligation to deliver was impossible due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the down payment amount of KRW 25 million received from the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant sales contract as unjust enrichment. (2) The Defendant, upon waiver of the instant sales contract, rescinded the instant sales contract, or the down payment was reverted to the Defendant pursuant to Article 6 of the instant sales contract due to the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of obligation, is unable to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. First, we examine the circumstances leading to the cancellation of the instant sales contract.

If either of the parties to a bilateral contract clearly expresses his/her intention not to perform his/her obligation in the event that the other party clearly expresses his/her intention not to perform his/her obligation, the contract may be lawfully rescinded without peremptory notice or offering to perform his/her obligation, but if the declaration of intention not to perform the obligation has been lawfully withdrawn, the other party may not rescind the contract for reasons of non-performance unless

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da40095 delivered on February 26, 2003). The plaintiff and the defendant comprehensively take account of the Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the testimony and whole pleadings of the witness C of the first instance trial.