1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the case, is as follows. ① Part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as follows. ② The ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion disputing the legality of rescission of the contract is added as prescribed in

(The main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). [Attachment] 5 conduct below the 3rd judgment of the court of first instance: “Wed down” as follows:

[Plaintiff] The sum of KRW 15,570,000 paid to the Defendant on five occasions from May 18, 2018 to September 14, 2018 (hereinafter “instant KRW 15,570,000”).

(B) the final notice from the Defendant, including the remaining payment date

9. The claim that, by paying KRW 160,570,000 until December 28, 200, the money exceeding KRW 160,000 was paid in cash under the instant sales contract.

The fact that the Defendant received KRW 15,570,000 from the Plaintiff is not a dispute between the parties.

However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the instant KRW 15,570,000 was paid as the purchase price of the instant land.

Rather, on July 4, 2019, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant paid KRW 160,000,000 to the Defendant as of October 1, 2018, from the preparatory document as of October 4, 2018.

This is based on the premise that the instant KRW 15,570,000 is not the purchase price of the instant land, and the Plaintiff actually paid KRW 15,000,000 to the Defendant on October 1, 2018 (Evidence No. 3 of the Evidence) supports the credibility of the assertion.

In addition, the witness E of the first instance court testified that "the plaintiff asked the defendant to pay the amount equivalent to the interest on bank loans instead of requesting the deferment of the balance and the payment date of capital gains tax," and there is no circumstance to reject the credibility of the testimony.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s remainder payment date stipulated in the instant sales contract ( April 30, 2018) was repeatedly made to the Defendant during the month after the end of each month.