1. Appeal against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s principal lawsuit, and appeal against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are quoted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

However, the plaintiff and the defendants are judged in addition to the arguments added or emphasized by this court as to the claims of the principal lawsuit.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the estimated amount of damages (Article 6 of the contract) out of the instant contract is not unfairly excessive; (b) accordingly, the Defendants are liable to pay the remainder of KRW 100 million and the damages incurred therefrom to the Plaintiff pursuant to the aforementioned estimated amount of damages. (c) At the time of the instant contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendants were in a mutually equal position. ② At the time of the instant contract, the estimated amount of damages of this case was not unfairly excessive to the extent of 9.4% of the purchase price of this case. ③ The Defendants’ failure to perform the instant contract was damaged the Plaintiff’s trust with the principal bank, and lost operating profit on the instant building. (b) In light of the circumstances under the Defendants’ assertion, the Plaintiff is liable to pay the Defendants the remaining amount of KRW 1.65 billion, as indicated in the contract (Evidence 2).

Nevertheless, only 1.49 billion won was intended to be paid to the Defendants.

The Plaintiff refused to perform part of the remaining purchase and sale amount, and the Defendants rescinded the instant contract.

Therefore, the down payment that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendants ought to be attributed to the Defendants.

① The instant sales contract (No. 2) is a disposal document.

As long as the purchase price is stated in KRW 2 billion, it is consistent with the Defendants’ assertion that the purchase price is KRW 2 billion.

② The Defendants agreed to receive the full payment of KRW 2 billion.

Since then, the plaintiff agreed to re-payment of the construction cost on the premise that the remodeling work is to be performed in the building of this case.