1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

2...

On May 30, 2013, the Plaintiff specified the said real estate in accordance with the attached list (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”), and purchased the said real estate in KRW 163,000,000 from the Defendants, and agreed to pay the remainder of KRW 148,00,000 on the date of the contract, and the intermediate payment of KRW 15,00,000 on June 27, 2013, respectively.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). The Plaintiff paid KRW 15,000,000 to the Defendants on the day of the said contract as down payment.

According to Article 5 of the contract of this case, if the buyer pays the intermediate payment (if there is no intermediate payment), the seller pays the intermediate payment to the seller before the buyer pays the intermediate payment (if there is no intermediate payment), the buyer gives up the down payment and cancels the contract. According to Article 6, if the seller or the buyer fails to perform the terms and conditions of the contract, the other party shall notify in writing the person who has failed to perform the contract, and the other party may claim damages from the other party

On the other hand, the above contract is stipulated as "as it is accepted in the present state" as a special agreement.

On the other hand, around June 17, 2013, through a licensed real estate agent E who arranged the instant contract, the Plaintiff asked the following: (a) around June 25, 2013, the Plaintiff asked, through a licensed real estate agent E, whether it is possible to lend the instant real estate as collateral; and (b) the said bank notified that the instant real estate building could not be granted a loan on the ground that it is improper for the instant real estate building to be a real estate for loan purposes (structure, size, and arrangement) because its official book and actual status are different (structure

On July 15, 2013, when the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder, the Defendants sent a certificate of content that the contract of this case was rescinded on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder.

However, as the above content certification has been returned to the addressee's unknown address, the defendants certify the contents to another address in the Northwest-do.