1. All the claims of the plaintiff and the plaintiff successor are dismissed.

2. The costs of litigation shall be part resulting from the number of successors.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 30, 2002, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract (this case’s sales contract) with the Defendant setting forth the supply price of KRW 136,000,000 (contract price of KRW 5,000,000, intermediate payment of KRW 81,600,000, and the remainder of KRW 49,40,000) of the D building No. 9 of the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan City.

B. The Plaintiff paid the down payment on the day of the instant contract, and the intermediate payment was loaned KRW 81,600,000 from the Plaintiff’s successor transferee on May 30, 2002 pursuant to the intermediate payment loan agreement included in the instant contract for sales.

C. After that, the Plaintiff delayed the remainder of the sales contract, and the sales contract in this case was cancelled on May 15, 2006, and the Defendant paid 30,822,779 won to the Plaintiff upon the above cancellation to the Plaintiff’s successor and paid the intermediate payment to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is 86,60,000 won for the sale price paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant according to the instant contract for sale in lots (the contract price of KRW 5,000,000 for intermediate payment of KRW 81,600 for intermediate payment of KRW 81,600,000 for intermediate payment of KRW 10%, and the penalty for breach of the contract for sale in lots is KRW 13,60,000 for the supply price of KRW 73,60,000 for the Defendant (i.e., KRW 86,600,000 for KRW 13,60,000 for - KRW 13,60,000 for the Defendant). On May 15, 2006, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s successor for the delay payment of KRW 30,822,779 on behalf of the Plaintiff.

B. 1) In full view of the above facts and the evidence as seen earlier, since the instant sales contract was cancelled, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the sales price of KRW 42,177,221 that the Plaintiff seeks to restore to its original state (the Plaintiff claims compensation for damages, but the instant sales contract was cancelled due to the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of obligation and thus the Defendant’s cancellation of the sales contract.