The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as provided in paragraph (2) above; and (b) the defendant’s argument added in the trial of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, (c) it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Part 2(c) of the decision of the court of first instance (Articles 8 and 12) written by the court of first instance shall be as follows:

Article 548(2) of the Civil Act provides that interest shall be added from the date of receipt to the money that is to be returned upon the fulfillment of the duty to restore due to the rescission of the contract. The repayment of the above interest is within the scope of the duty to restore, and it does not fall within the nature of the return of unjust enrichment. Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provides that the statutory interest rate, which serves as the basis for calculating the amount of damages due to the default of the monetary obligation, is a special provision on the statutory interest rate which serves as the basis for calculating the amount of damages due to the default of the monetary obligation. Thus, the interest cannot be applied to the above interest under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., but where a lawsuit seeking the return of money due to the performance of the duty to restore is filed, the obligor is liable for delay due to the delay of the duty to restore, and thus if the court declares the return of money due to the performance of the duty to restore, the interest rate shall be applied.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da76298 delivered on July 22, 2003, etc.). Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to cancel the contract to the plaintiff.