1. As to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s KRW 500,000,000 among them and KRW 100,000,000 among them, the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant)’s Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) on September 5, 2011.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 5, 2011, the Defendant entrusted D with the sale of the instant real estate owned by the Defendant. On the same day, the Plaintiff concluded a real estate sales contract with D to purchase the instant real estate at KRW 1,000,000 (hereinafter “instant contract”), and paid the down payment of KRW 100,000 to D on the date of the contract.

B. After that, the Plaintiff additionally paid D KRW 10 million on November 8, 201, KRW 20 million on November 17, 201, KRW 17,99 million on November 18, 201, KRW 30,100 on November 19, 201, KRW 550,000 on November 25, 201, KRW 50,000 on November 28, 201, KRW 50,000 on November 29, 201, KRW 40 million on November 30, 201, and KRW 50,000 on November 29, 201, KRW 50,000 on November 30, 201, and KRW 400,000.

C. On February 13, 2013, the Defendant sent to D a content-certified mail stating that D’s agent qualification for the sale of the instant real estate was revoked on the ground that D’s sales amount received from the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 100 million + intermediate payment and the balance KRW 400 million) was delivered to D only KRW 355 million and the remainder was voluntarily paid.

The Plaintiff did not pay the remainder of the instant real estate to the Defendant until now, and the Defendant did not implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was rescinded by implied agreement between the parties, and even if implied rescission is not recognized, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff had no intention to perform the instant contract more than once. As such, the instant contract was lawfully rescinded by delivery of content-certified mail or copy of the instant complaint on December 22, 2015 on the ground of the Defendant’s refusal to perform the instant contract.

Therefore, the defendant is therefore the plaintiff.