1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 23, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s representative director: (a) entered into a real estate sales contract with the Plaintiff, the purchaser, and the purchaser at KRW 1.5 billion (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); and (b) entered into a contract entered into pursuant to the instant sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

In the instant sales contract, there is an indication that “the remaining amount of KRW 1.35 billion shall be paid and received within 30 days after the permission is granted,” and “the down payment shall be refunded if the business approval is not obtained.”

B. On March 23, 2015, the day on which the instant sales contract was prepared, the Plaintiff wired the down payment of KRW 150 million to an account in the Defendant’s name.

C. On February 16, 2016, the Defendant obtained the approval of the housing construction project plan regarding the construction of the instant real property F, G, H, and I’s collective housing and ancillary and welfare facilities among the instant real property from the private market.

D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “J”) with substantial operation of D completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 27, 2017 with respect to the instant real estate due to sale and purchase.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 5, and 11 (including branch numbers), Eul's witness D, E's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff is the purchaser of the instant sales contract, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion in the sales contract.

Nevertheless, unlike the instant sales contract, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant real estate to J other than the Plaintiff, so the Defendant’s obligation to transfer ownership to the Plaintiff was impossible.

Therefore, since the plaintiff cancels the sales contract of this case, the defendant will restore the contract to its original state upon impossibility of performance.