1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim in this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. On September 7, 2017, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion decided to purchase at KRW 7,750, Korea-do 15, which was owned by the Defendant from the Defendant, and paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 5 million on the same day. At the time, the Defendant was an essential bruc test and tuberculosis test for both Korea-do 15 and Korea-do 15 transactions, and the Plaintiff decided to deliver it immediately upon the Plaintiff’s desire.

However, both Korea and Japan sold by the Defendant and 15 Blucella test and tuberculosis test were not completed, and the Plaintiff could not receive them immediately. The said contract was rescinded at the time of arrival of the Defendant’s notice of September 29, 2017, which included the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to rescind the contract due to the Defendant’s nonperformance.

Therefore, the plaintiff primarily claims against the defendant for the refund of 5 million won of the down payment on the grounds of the above contract termination and for the payment of damages for delay, and as a preliminary claim, 5 million won of the damages equivalent to the above down payment due to the defendant's default and the damages for delay are claimed.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court below, Gap evidence No. 2 merely stated that at the time when the plaintiff purchased 15 Korean-China 15 Korean-China 15 Korean-Japan from the defendant, the defendant completed the brucella test and tuberculosis test.

In addition, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the contract was concluded on the premise that the above 15 Blucella test and the tuberculosis test was completed, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the contract was concluded.

Therefore, the plaintiff's cancellation of contract and the plaintiff's assertion of return of down payment and the claim of damages on this premise are without merit without any further examination as to the remainder.

On the other hand, according to the overall purport of Eul evidence No. 1 and the argument, the plaintiff refused to accept it on the ground that the above 15 brucella test and tuberculosis test had not been completed.