1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

The reasoning for the court's explanation on the instant case is as follows: (a) adding "the Plaintiff's ownership" to "the Defendant" in Part 9 of the second instance judgment; (b) adding "the seller" in Part 17 of the second instance judgment to "the Plaintiff"; and (c) "the buyer" in Part 1 of the third instance judgment to "the buyer (the Defendant)" respectively; and (d) as to the additional argument in the trial of the court of first instance, it is identical to the part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following determination as to the additional argument in the trial of the court of first instance. Accordingly, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

【Supplementary Judgment】

A. On July 26, 2013, the summary of the Defendant’s assertion and the Defendant’s oral amendment of the instant sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) as to KRW 3.3 million of additional loans on July 26, 2013, the obligor as the Plaintiff and the joint guarantor as the Defendant; (b) on the Defendant’s assumption that the Defendant will pay interest on the total amount of the existing and additional loans in lieu of payment for intermediate payments

The Plaintiff merely notified the Defendant of the performance of the contract only from October 201 to August 2012, 201, and provided documents necessary for the transfer of ownership after July 26, 2013, and did not demand the Defendant to perform the contract and did not separately notify the Defendant of the rescission of the contract.

Therefore, since the expression of intent for cancellation by the delivery of the complaint of this case is unlawful, the sales contract of this case is maintained as it is.

B. On July 26, 2013, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff and the Defendant changed the content of the instant sales contract to the same effect as the Defendant alleged on July 26, 2013, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise. Accordingly, according to the records in the evidence Nos. 13, 2-1 through 3, and 6, the Plaintiff’s statement on July 29, 201.