1. On September 20, 2012, the Plaintiff’s real estate stated in the separate sheet based on the sales contract against the Defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 20, 2012, the Defendant entered into the instant sales contract with the Plaintiff and the instant real estate indicated in the separate sheet to purchase KRW 130 million (other than this, the Defendant agreed to pay the transfer income tax to be borne by the Plaintiff within the limit of KRW 15 million).

B. Upon entering into the instant sales contract, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the down payment of KRW 20 million out of the purchase price, and the remaining payment of KRW 110 million up to December 17, 2012.

However, the defendant did not pay the remaining amount to the plaintiff by December 17, 2012.

C. On January 3, 2013 and January 29, 2013, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant sales contract will be rescinded if the remaining amount is not paid by demanding the Defendant to pay the remaining amount twice. The Defendant received each of them around that time.

On July 3, 2013, the Defendant agreed to pay a total of KRW 125 million between the Plaintiff and the remainder of KRW 110 million and capital gains tax of KRW 15 million until December 30, 2013.

E. On June 3, 2014, the Plaintiff prepared documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership, such as the issuance of a certificate of personal seal impression for real estate sale, etc., and then paid 110 million won to the Defendant by June 11, 2014, capital gains tax of KRW 15 million, and notified the Defendant of the receipt of documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership, at the same time, and notified the Defendant that the instant sales contract was cancelled if the said documents were not fulfilled. The Defendant received this around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-14 Evidence (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. If a party’s performance of one party’s own obligation is strictly required in a bilateral contract, it may rather be attributable to the party acting in good faith. Therefore, the degree of offer to be made by one party shall be reasonably determined so as not to violate the principle of trust and good faith depending on the time and specific circumstances.