1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 760,192 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Plaintiff’s counterclaim from August 23, 2017 to August 22, 2018.

A. In full view of the circumstances, a sales contract was concluded on the condition that the Plaintiff would borrow a considerable portion of the remainder due to the Plaintiff’s loan cooperation, and it was not actually possible to obtain a loan with the Plaintiff’s cooperation. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that the instant sales contract was rescinded by the delivery of a preparatory document as of May 24, 2018 by the Defendant, which included the Defendant’s assertion of cancellation of the contract due to nonperformance, at least the same time, including the Defendant’s assertion of cancellation of the contract due to nonperformance. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are jointly and severally liable to

* Although there has already been a debt of KRW 580 million with the instant real estate as security, the Defendant seems to have concluded a sales contract with the knowledge that the Plaintiff would be able to obtain a loan at least KRW 650 million from a financial institution at an annual interest rate of at least 4.2% from a financial institution, and would be able to fully pay the purchase price with the loan and pay the down payment of KRW 82 million.

* Accordingly, the plaintiffs and the defendant agreed to terminate the sales contract without penalty in the event that the above amount of KRW 650 million is not loaned at the above interest rate with the security of each of the instant real estate.

* However, after the conclusion of the instant sales contract, even though it attempted to obtain a loan of each of the instant real estate as collateral from the financial institutions such as the JA, it could not actually obtain a loan.

* On November 21, 2016, Plaintiff A reversed the instant sales contract to the Defendant, and the Defendant notified the financial institution account number of the refund of down payment.

* Nevertheless, the Plaintiff entered into the instant agreement and the sales contract as of February 4, 2017, while failing to refund the down payment in the Defendant’s demand for the return of down payment. However, the basic terms and conditions of the instant sales contract, such as: (a) having to borrow and pay a considerable portion of the purchase price and balance at a fixed interest rate (4.2% per annum) from financial institutions, are maintained.