1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is based on the third-party judgment of the court of first instance.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment, except for the following cases, and thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In cases where the obligor clearly expresses his/her intention not to perform his/her obligation, the obligee may rescind a contract or claim damages against the obligor for reasons of non-performance without the obligor’s demand even before the due date is due under the principle of good faith, but in order to recognize such non-performance, the obligor’s apparent declaration of intention not to perform his/her obligation should be deemed unlawful.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da227225, Feb. 12, 2015). In addition, in cases of cancelling a contract due to “non-performance”, the requirements for cancelling a contract are alleviated when compared with the rescission of a contract at the time of delay of performance as the other party’s peremptory notice and/or simultaneous performance do not require the other party’s provision of performance. In addition, in order to recognize implied intent for refusal of performance by taking into account the various circumstances at the time of the contract or after the contract, in addition to cases where express intent for refusal of performance, the intention of refusal ought

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da77385 Decided February 10, 201). In full view of the respective entries and arguments in the evidence Nos. 6 and 7, the following circumstances, i.e., the Defendant, through the certification of the content of February 3, 2016, filed a claim against the Plaintiff for payment of the remaining amount under the premise that the Plaintiff’s loan KRW 48 million is deducted from the purchase price of KRW 160 million, and thus, the Defendant’s claim for the deduction of the Defendant’s agricultural loan liability is unjustifiable.

(2) In the instant sales contract, it is difficult to readily conclude that the phrase “48 million won” in the special terms and conditions under the instant sales contract is false, and ② the sales contract A.