1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 5, 2012, the Plaintiff, through C, who works for the real estate brokerage office, purchased from the Defendant the land for Gyeonggi-gun D, E, F, and G (hereinafter “instant land”) at KRW 434 million, and paid the down payment of KRW 20 million on the same day, and agreed to pay the remainder KRW 414 million on December 5, 2012.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). B.

On December 24, 2012, the Defendant sold the instant land to H and three other parties, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the contract of this case was unable to be performed because the defendant arbitrarily sold the land of this case to another person, and the defendant is obligated to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay 40 million won, which is a double of the down payment amount as estimated damages.

The defendant asserts that since the contract of this case was rescinded because the plaintiff did not pay the balance on the payment date as stipulated in the contract of this case, it cannot comply with the plaintiff's claim of this case.

B. In order to cancel a contract, as in the case of a general contract where the contract is concluded, the agreement cancellation is the requirement that the conflicting declaration of intent between the offer and the acceptance of the contract be reached. However, since the contract cancellation can be made implicitly as well as explicitly and explicitly, it is reasonable to interpret that the contract cancellation is implicitly rescinded by the agreement of both parties when the lack or renunciation of intent to realize the contract is objectively consistent with the intent expressed by both parties.

Supreme Court Decision 200 delivered on January 1, 2002