1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for this court’s explanation is as follows: “from March 31, 2012 to March 31, 2012” in Part 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance from March 31, 2013 to “from March 31, 2013”; and the foregoing is the same as the statement of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth in paragraph 2 below; thus, this is cited by the main text of Article 420

2. (1) The Plaintiff asserts that all the purchase money stipulated in the instant sales contract was paid to the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s assertion that “the contract amount and the balance of the contract amount are KRW 600 million paid and received at the time of the contract” is as alleged by the Plaintiff.

However, even if following the plaintiff's own assertion, the above KRW 600 million was paid by the plaintiff by taking over KRW 600 million against the defendant D and C's claim for the refund of the deposit for lease on a deposit basis.

The statement of Gap evidence No. 11 (the receipt for the purchase price) submitted by the plaintiff in the trial also was set off by the plaintiff's claim 600 million won that the plaintiff acquired from D and C and paid 600 million won for the purchase price.

On the other hand, in the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff agreed to accept KRW 600 million for the Defendant’s obligation to return the deposit for the lease deposit against D and C.

Therefore, even if the Plaintiff acquired the obligation of KRW 600 million against the Defendant of D and C, the Plaintiff is obligated to take over the Defendant’s obligation to return the deposit previously transferred to D and C, and thus, it cannot be asserted that the Plaintiff paid KRW 600 million to the Defendant by offsetting the obligation to return the deposit previously transferred to the Plaintiff as above.

(2) As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant sales contract was determined to take over only the Defendant’s obligation without any additional payment of the purchase price, and that the party, other than the legal text, was actually able to prepare a contract.

However, in the sales contract of this case, △△△ shall prohibit the sale price from being raised.