1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 31, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant B, setting the sales price as KRW 162 million and the remainder payment date on December 26, 2016 with respect to D Apartment Nos. 103 and 403 (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. The Plaintiff paid the down payment of KRW 16 million to Defendant B via Defendant C by the broker of the above sales contract.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, and the purport before oral argument

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion attempted to pay the remainder on the date of the remainder payment, and the issue of collateral security, provisional seizure, etc. established on the instant building was not resolved and thus, the payment of the remainder at the request of the Defendants was deferred, and the ownership of the said building

This is a non-performance due to the seller's fault, thus seeking compensation for damages.

B. In the case where both obligations are simultaneously performed in the judgment bilateral contract, even if the fulfillment period for one party's obligations arrives, the other party's obligations are not held liable for the delay of performance until the other party's obligations are performed. The effect is not always attributable to the claimant who is not responsible for the delay of performance. Thus, in the case where the other party's obligation is provided in the bilateral contract which is concurrently performed, if it is necessary to perform the other party's obligation, the other party's act is completed at any time when it is necessary to perform the other party's obligation, and the other party's obligation should be notified and notified to the other party, and the other party shall be allowed to be omitted

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da3764, Jul. 10, 2001). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant case is a health unit and the party to a bilateral contract.