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 of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is as follows, except for the defendant’s additional determination as to the assertion added by the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant alleged that the contract of this case was revoked since the defendant expressed his intention of rescission while providing the plaintiff with realizing KRW 200 million, which is a part of the down payment of the contract of this case, but he refused to receive the said money and deposited the said money with the Gwangju District Court.

B. (1) Determination is that the seller of the relevant legal doctrine intends to redeem the amount of the down payment and cancel the contract in accordance with Article 565 of the Civil Act, and the buyer shall commence the performance until the buyer commences the performance. Here, the commencement of the performance refers to a case where the seller performs part of the performance of the obligation or performs the premised act necessary to perform the performance to the extent objectively recognizable from the outside, and the mere preparation for the performance is insufficient, but it does not necessarily lead to the extent that the performance is provided in line

(Supreme Court Decision 93Da1114 delivered on May 25, 1993). Also, one of the parties mentioned in Article 565(1) of the Civil Act refers to either of the parties to a transaction, and it does not mean that the seller, who is the other party, has never commenced the performance of a sales contract.

Even if the buyer pays the intermediate payment and has already commenced the performance, the buyer shall not waive the down payment and cancel the sales contract pursuant to Article 565 of the Civil Act.

(2) In the case of this case, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 5 (including paper numbers) and 7, the fact inquiry reply to the National Defense Facility Headquarters of this court, and witness and Q testimony respectively.