1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 31, 2006, Daeung-do Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Gyeongyeong-gu”) entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase five parcels of land, 8,622m2 and 2.8 billion won (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) in Busan City’s annual forest C, and 8,622m2 and five parcels of land.

B. According to the instant sales contract, the Grand Prize paid to the Defendant the sum of KRW 560 million in total, each of the down payment and intermediate payment KRW 280 million, but did not pay the remainder amount of KRW 2.2 billion until February 28, 2007, which is the remainder payment date.

C. Accordingly, on March 9, 2007, the Defendant sent a notice stating that “in the event that the balance is not paid by March 14, 2007, the sales contract will be rescinded.” However, the border did not pay the balance by March 14, 2007.

On August 18, 2016, Dae-Gyeong transferred to the Plaintiff a claim for refund of the down payment and intermediate payment of KRW 560 million against the Defendant upon the rescission of the instant sales contract (hereinafter “instant claim for refund of the purchase price”) and notified the Defendant of the said transfer on September 20, 2016.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3, 5, 6, 16 through 21, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts acknowledged in paragraph (1) of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the instant sales contract was cancelled on March 15, 2007, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to return the said down payment and intermediate payment to the Plaintiff, the assignee of the claim, the restoration due to the cancellation of the instant sales contract, and the said down payment and intermediate payment KRW 560 million,

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant’s claim for the refund of the purchase price of this case was completed five years after the extinctive prescription for commercial matters.

B. 1) According to Article 47(1) and (2) of the Commercial Act, a merchant’s act for business purposes is presumed to be a commercial activity, and a merchant’s act is presumed to be for business purposes (Article 47 of the Commercial Act, and a large competition is between the Defendant and the Defendant.