1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 341,261,232, and KRW 107,00,000 among them, from February 17, 2010 to the date of full payment.

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff is a company that entered into a sales contract with the deceased B to purchase the area of 849 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

The deceased B died on August 30, 2011, and the defendant is the person who succeeded to the land of this case from the deceased B according to the division of inherited property by agreement.

The Plaintiff purchased the instant land from the deceased B on September 16, 2010, KRW 642.5 million, but the down payment of KRW 60 million and the intermediate payment of KRW 100 million on the date of the contract; the remainder of KRW 482.5 million shall be paid on December 16, 2010; and KRW 380 million out of the remainder, KRW 380 million shall be paid on December 16, 201, and the Plaintiff agreed to substitute the payment of KRW 380 million out of the net’s debt to the Daejeon Livestock Cooperative.

(hereinafter “instant purchase and sale”). On June 14, 201, the Network B agreed with the Plaintiff to complete the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land when the urban planning deliberation was passed between the Plaintiff and Jung-gu Office.

The deceased B died on August 30, 201, and on March 13, 2012, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant, the heir of the deceased B, to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land by March 28, 2012. However, the Defendant expressed his/her intent to cancel the instant transaction by delivering a copy of the instant complaint to the Defendant who did not comply therewith.

The Plaintiff’s assertion as to whether the instant purchase and sale was lawfully rescinded has paid the sales price to the deceased B according to the instant sales, and the deceased B and the Defendant, his heir, when the urban planning deliberation was passed by the Dae-gu Office, did not immediately transfer the name of the instant land to the Plaintiff, but did not implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer to the Plaintiff even after the urban planning deliberation was passed on October 30, 201, even after the date on which the urban planning deliberation was passed.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff cancelled the instant transaction on the grounds of the Defendant’s nonperformance, and thus, the Defendant’s order is issued to the Plaintiff by restitution following the cancellation of the instant sale.