1. The part concerning the counterclaim of the first instance judgment shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)B.

1. The reasons for this part of the facts of recognition are as follows, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) The fifth half of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as "within one month") shall be applied to "within three days".

(2) The sixth-party written judgment of the court of first instance is rendered.

In the instant forest, “e.g., two or three fluorous and fluorous graves are buried in the instant forest, and among which two fluorous and fluorous graves were buried in around July 21, 2017, and three fluorous and fluorous graves were buried in around May 11, 2018.”

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. Plaintiff 1’s assertion of the parties in the first place. ① Within one month from the date of the contract under the instant sales contract, which is the time limit stipulated in the Plaintiff’s sales contract, and until July 15, 2017, the period for which the Plaintiff had been postponed from the content certification of June 30, 2017, the seller did not perform the Plaintiff’s duty to relocate a grave and a grave without delay until July 15, 2017. ② The seller’s duty to remove a grave is not a seller’s “duty to transfer ownership” for the purpose of the instant contract, but a seller’s duty to remove a grave, which is an “pre-performance” for the purpose of the instant contract. ③ The Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the remainder of the time period is within three days from the date of obtaining permission for solar energy business, and thus, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the remainder and the obligation to transfer a grave are not deemed a simultaneous performance relationship with the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the remainder as it has not yet arrived.

④ Even if the Defendants’ duty of this Chapter and the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the remainder simultaneously were to be fulfilled, the Plaintiff was prepared to pay the remainder in reality on April 30, 2017, and thus the Plaintiff lawfully rescinded the instant sales contract.

Therefore, the Defendants, the seller, shall restore the contract deposit to the Plaintiff, which is 150,000.