1.(a)

Of the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the money which orders payment below.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows. The evidence listed in the fourth to the fourth to seventh is added to “No. 2,” and “No. 20” is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of “No. 4 to the fourth to the fourth to the fourth to the fourth to the fourth to the fourth to the fourth to the foregoing,” and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. As such, the part which was used for the first to be cited is as follows: “F., 1,957 Of the No. 30 on June 30, 2014, the witness B was put into the warehouse of the instant case (the witness B of the first instance to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the date of June 30, 2014. However, according to the overall purport of the arguments and the entire arguments, the price for the second to the second to the second to the second to the witness was additionally recorded.

(2) The Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the fact of suffering from the same day and requested the Plaintiff to undergo an inspection procedure against Nopt North Korea, but the Plaintiff did not comply therewith. Accordingly, the Defendant and the Defendant followed the inspection procedure on the Nopt North Korea’s portion from July 1, 2014 to July 9 of the same month without the Plaintiff’s participation.

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the time of entering into the instant contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant set the time of entering into the instant contract into force on June 30, 2014, but the Defendant failed to deliver all the two thousand eight hundred and ninety thousand eight hundred and ninety five streets by June 30, 2014.

Since the Defendant did not receive the entire amount of Nowon-gu by the date of entry, the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to comply with the examination procedure, and despite the Defendant’s mistake, the Plaintiff has also cooperated in the procedure of determining the purchase price.

Since the contract of this case was cancelled on the ground of not the plaintiff's default but the defendant's default, the plaintiff is not obligated to pay the penalty to the defendant, and the defendant shall return the down payment amount to the plaintiff.

In addition, the plaintiff is worth KRW 1170,000,000,000,000 to A.