1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as stated in the part of the first instance judgment, except for adding the judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) below, as to the argument that the Plaintiff filed in the trial by filing an appeal, and thereby citing it as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. While the Defendant’s assertion was received from Q as a buyer and kept the proceeds of sale, the Defendant believed that the Plaintiff could complete the registration of ownership transfer by paying the proceeds of sale in advance, and paid the proceeds of sale in advance to the Plaintiff.

Nevertheless, as the Plaintiff did not complete the registration of ownership transfer to the above Q, the Plaintiff was ultimately liable for damages equivalent to the sale price from the above Q. As a result, the Defendant’s adjustment was concluded to pay the above Q KRW 125,00,000 to Q.

(Seoul High Court 2014Na25810). Accordingly, the defendant can claim against the plaintiff the above damages liability against Q, so the above damages liability against the plaintiff is set off against the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff with the compensation liability.

B. According to the records in the evidence Nos. 9 through 12 of the judgment, it can be acknowledged that the adjustment to pay KRW 125,00,000 as compensation for damages was made because the Defendant failed to complete the registration of ownership transfer to the above Q even though the Defendant was paid the sale price by the above Q.

However, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the defendant caused the plaintiff's tort to be liable for damages to Q above, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit without further review.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as there is no ground, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just as it is concluded.