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 cited in the instant case is that of the first instance judgment, except for an additional determination under paragraph (2) as to the assertion emphasized by the Plaintiff by filing an appeal, and thus, citing it as is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

(The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff are not significantly different from the allegations in the judgment of the court of first instance, and facts findings and judgments in the court of first instance are recognized as legitimate). 2. Additional determination

A. The gist of the grounds of appeal is 1) The transfer and takeover contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on February 11, 2016 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”).

(2) Since the contract of this case was lawfully cancelled due to the Defendant’s default, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the down payment amounting to KRW 60 million and the damages for delay. (2) The ownership of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) was transferred to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), and thus the purpose of the instant contract cannot be achieved due to the grounds for which both parties are not responsible.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the down payment of KRW 60 million and damages for delay as unjust enrichment to the plaintiff.

B. 1) In full view of the following facts: (a) as to the primary claim, the Defendant Company C (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) different from the instant contract and the purport of the entire testimony and pleading of the witness D, taking into account the following as to the primary claim: (b) the record of evidence No. 3; and (c) the witness D’s testimony and pleading

A) The fact that the shares of the Plaintiff and the representative director were transferred to Nonparty D, who is not the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to cancel the instant contract at the Defendant’s office around August 22, 2016, and that the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to cancel the instant contract again through the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint on September 18, 2017. However, it is recognized that the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to cancel the instant contract again through the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint on September 18, 2017.

witness D's testimony and pleading.