1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the corresponding column of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of “the compensation for damage caused by the rescission of the contract of this case shall be deemed as the basis for compensation for damage, unless otherwise agreed.”

2. The assertion;

A. At the time of the instant sales contract, the sales price of the instant land and buildings was set at KRW 1.155 million in a lump sum, but did not separately determine the sales price of the instant land.

At the time, the Plaintiff, who was aware of the market price of the instant land at the time, refused the intermediate payment on the ground of the tax issues that may arise in the future, and there was a dispute and consultation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Then, the Defendant unilaterally notified the Plaintiff of the cancellation of the instant sales contract, and sold the instant land and buildings to another person.

Ultimately, since the sales contract of this case was caused by the defendant's cause attributable to the defendant, the defendant is obliged to recover the contract deposit to the plaintiff according to the termination of the contract, to the total sum of KRW 100 million and the estimated amount of damages for the cancellation of the contract, and

B. Although the sales price of the instant land was agreed upon at KRW 350 million to enter into the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff refused to perform the obligation to pay part payments without accepting the agreement.

Accordingly, the defendant notified the cancellation of the contract on September 25, 2012.

As a result, the sales contract of this case was terminated due to the causes attributable to the plaintiff, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Determination

A. The instant case.