1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning the facts and the defense of this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Summary of the parties' arguments on the merits;

A. On September 14, 2017, the Defendant expressed its intent to cancel the instant sales contract on the ground that “the Plaintiff had not paid any balance within 20 days from the date of notification of the date of loan available”. For the following reasons, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the remainder at the time of delay of performance is unlawful.

Therefore, the Defendant’s expression of intent to cancel the instant sales contract to the Plaintiff, and the re-tender notice for each real estate of this case constitutes a rejection of performance. Since the instant sales contract was cancelled by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent of rescission as of September 21, 2017 on the ground of refusal of performance, the Defendant should compensate the Plaintiff for damages due to restitution to the original state and nonperformance.

1) Of the provisions on the remaining payment date of the instant sales contract, the term “loanable date” was based on the premise that the Plaintiff can obtain “the remainder loan by means of taking a collateral offered by the Defendant for the instant real estate.” Since the Plaintiff was a juristic person and it was virtually impossible from the beginning to obtain the above loan, the Plaintiff’s remaining payment period at the time when the Defendant declared intent of rescission did not arrive. 2) Even if the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the remainder comes to the due date, the Defendant did not provide the Plaintiff with the obligation to transfer ownership of each of the instant real estate in relation to the simultaneous performance of the said obligation, and thus, at the time, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the remainder was not delayed

B. The Defendant’s declaration of the rescission of the instant sales contract on September 14, 2017 on the following grounds.