1. On December 14, 2016, the Defendant registered the Incheon District Court with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.

1. On December 8, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to sell each real estate (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) listed in the separate sheet as down payment amounting to KRW 80,00,000 (payment date: the contract date), intermediate payment of KRW 150,000,000 (payment date: December 31, 2016), the remainder of KRW 430,000 (payment date: June 30, 2017: Provided, That the part exceeding KRW 200,000,000, out of the collateral collateral debt of a new bank, shall be repaid by the Plaintiff, and KRW 200,000,000,000,000 (the remainder of payment date: December 31, 2016).

On December 1, 2016, the Defendant remitted 10,000,000 won, which is a part of the down payment, to the Plaintiff.

On December 14, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate to the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In cancelling a contract on the ground of the delay of performance in the determination as to the cause of the claim, the peremptory notice of performance, which is a prerequisite for the premise, does not necessarily have to be given by specifying a certain period in advance, and at the time of the peremptory notice, the right of rescission may arise after a considerable period of time has elapsed. If the seller has notified the seller that he/she has neglected his/her duty under the sales contract, such as failing to pay the purchase-price to the buyer, so that there was the peremptory notice of performance as to the buyer’s duty under the sales contract. If the buyer

According to the above facts, the Defendant paid only KRW 10,000,000 out of the down payment to the Plaintiff, and neglected to pay the remainder down payment, intermediate payment, and the remainder of the down payment to the Plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da35930, Nov. 25, 1994).

Although the defendant asserts that the remaining down payment amount of KRW 70,000,000 was paid to the plaintiff in cash, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the defendant is limited to KRW 100,000,000 among part payments by the plaintiff.