1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the Defendant.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following changes:

2. Matters modified;

O. 3.b) out of the grounds for the judgment of the first instance; and

subsection (1) shall be amended as follows:

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) asserts as follows. ① The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant did not perform the obligation to complete the responsibility and the obligation to sell the land in this case, which the Defendant could not receive the remainder of KRW 5 billion from the proceeds deposited in the account for the management of proceeds from the sale of the land in this case under the instant business agreement, and the Plaintiff is obligated to pay compensation for damages to the Defendant. ② In addition, according to the instant trust agreement, the sale price is returned at the time of the cancellation of the sale contract, and the Plaintiff is liable to return the sale price to the Defendant. Since the sale contract in this case was cancelled due to the above reasons attributable to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the sale price to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant’s claim for the above damage claim or the obligation to return the sale price is offset against the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation for damages on an equal basis with the Plaintiff’s indemnity. According to the evidence and the written statement in the evidence No. 11, the instant business agreement provides for the Plaintiff’s duty to complete the responsibility (Article 4(3)1) and the Plaintiff’s obligation to suspend the construction work within the period.