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 reasons why the court of first instance should explain are as follows, except where the defendant added the judgment specified in Article 2(2) to the argument that the defendant added or added to the court of first instance, and thus, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s assertion is a transaction between a lessor and a lessee, and that the contract was concluded as a proposal of the Plaintiff at a insolvency, and that it was a high-priced real estate, and that the ownership transfer registration on the date of the contract was completed, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay the balance on the day of the contract without paying the down payment. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant, while deciding to succeed only to the obligation without paying the purchase price, was aware of the fact that the sum of the obligation to refund the deposit for lease was KRW 140 million and the obligation to refund the deposit for lease, and that the Plaintiff was mistakenly aware of the fact that the sum of the obligation to refund the deposit for lease was KRW 120 million,000,000,0000

A total of KRW 1,120,000,000 should be deemed to have been agreed.

However, as the Defendant acquired both the loan obligations and the obligation to return the lease deposit in accordance with the instant sales contract, there is no purchase price to be paid to the Plaintiff.

B. The judgment of the court below is based on the following circumstances, which can be seen as comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entries in Gap's 1 through 4 and the entire arguments, although the defendant alleged to the effect that he fully paid the purchase price by acquiring the plaintiff's loan obligations and the obligation to return lease deposit, the defendant stated that "the contract for the actual purchase price is KRW 1,960,000,000,000, and the contract for the amount of KRW 1,120,000,000 is prepared on the third date for pleading," and the defendant stated that "the contract for the actual purchase price is prepared at the time of the exclusion of value-added tax," and the value-added tax on the part of the building of the commercial building is early.