1. As to the plaintiff's claim on the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance that changed in exchange at the court of first instance.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 23, 2017, the Plaintiff prepared a sales contract with the Defendant and the Defendant to purchase the instant real estate from the Plaintiff for KRW 850 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff, which was concluded pursuant to the instant sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

(A) Evidence No. 1, B No. 1.b.

The Defendant deposited the Plaintiff as the principal deposit on March 24, 2017, the intermediate payment KRW 200 million, and the down payment KRW 150 million on April 7, 2017 (the Defendant, on February 23, 2017, paid the down payment of KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff, on March 29, 2017, returned the down payment to the Defendant and refused to receive the down payment) and on April 28, 2017, the remainder of KRW 500 million, respectively.

(Evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6) / [Grounds for Recognition] Gap 1, Eul 1, 4, 5, and 6 respectively, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff did not bear the obligation to transfer ownership under the instant sales contract for the following reasons; and (b) the Defendant disputing such obligation is sought to confirm the absence of the said obligation.

1) The Defendant, even though the actual purchaser was the buyer, was the buyer, and the Plaintiff was the actual purchaser was the buyer, and entered into the instant sales contract by deceiving the Plaintiff as if the actual purchaser was the other person. Accordingly, the Plaintiff revoked the instant sales contract on the grounds of deception by the Defendant. As such, the instant sales contract is null and void. (2) The Plaintiff merely granted the right of representation for the conclusion of the sales contract with the Defendant, as it belongs to the Defendant’s horse that the Plaintiff would sell the instant real estate to C, and did not confer the right of representation for the conclusion of the sales contract with the Defendant, and the said granting of the right of representation was revoked on the grounds of deception.

3. The defendant's false statements.