1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall receive KRW 15,00,000 from the plaintiff at the same time.

1. As a result of examining the grounds for appeal regarding the primary cause of claim and the evidence submitted by the parties, the legitimacy of the judgment of the court of first instance is examined, and this part of the grounds are the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that a witness T is deemed a witness of the court of first instance as a witness of the court of first instance. Therefore, this part of the grounds are cited pursuant to the main sentence of

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.

A. Since the Defendant’s obligation to register cancellation of the Defendant’s argument is concurrently performed with the obligation to return the purchase price to the Defendant, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 15 million and the delay damages calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from September 18, 2007 to the date of the Defendant’s obligation to register cancellation at the same time.

B) In a case where a bilateral contract becomes null and void and each party has to return one another’s acquisition, it would result in a violation of the principle of fairness and good faith if the obligation to return is enforced first, and thus, each party’s obligation to return is in a concurrent performance relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da45025, May 14, 1993; 95Da54693, Jun. 14, 1996). Meanwhile, in a concurrent performance relationship, the Plaintiff cannot claim damages on the premise that the other party’s obligation has been delayed, unless the other party’s right to defense of concurrent performance that the other party has continued to provide performance terminates (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da1513,1514, Nov. 14, 1972; 94Da2646, Mar. 14, 1995; 208Da1808, Jan. 18, 1995).