1. The Defendant’s KRW 6.5 million to the Plaintiff, as well as 5% per annum from March 1, 2017 to November 14, 2017.

1. Facts constituting the basis for no dispute between the parties;

가. 피고는 2014. 10. 31. 원고에게 서울 강북구 C 대 255㎡와 그 지상의 단독주택(☞ 시멘트 블록조 기와지붕 단층주택 61.49㎡, 부속건물까지도 포함. 이하 편의상 위 토지와 단독주택을 통틀어 ‘이 사건 부동산’이라고 한다)을 4억 3,000만원(= 2014. 11. 1.까지 지급하기로 약정한 계약금 3,000만원 2014. 12. 15.까지 지급하기로 약정한 중도금 1억원 2015. 1. 30.까지 지급하기로 약정한 잔금 1억 400만원 융자금과 임대차보증금의 반환채무는 원고가 승계하기로 함)에 일괄적으로 매도한 다음(이하 편의상 그 매매계약을 ‘이 사건 매매계약’이라고 한다), 이에 따라 2014. 11. 3.까지 원고로부터 계약금 3,000만원을 받았다.

B. However, while the Plaintiff’s payment of intermediate payments is delayed due to the financing difficulties, the Plaintiff demanded the cancellation of the instant sales contract, even if some of the down payment already paid to the Defendant, and the Defendant did not accept the request and demanded the Plaintiff from time to time to time for the performance of the obligation to pay the remainder of the sales price pursuant to the instant sales contract. While the implementation of the instant sales contract was in a state of arrival due to the Plaintiff’s unilateral circumstances, the Plaintiff believed that the Defendant had no intention to implement the instant sales contract, and sold the instant real estate to D on February 29, 2016, and accordingly, on April 29, 2016, each ownership transfer registration was completed in D with respect to the instant real estate.

2. Judgment on the issue

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant sales contract had already been lawfully rescinded on the wind that was impossible due to the Defendant’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff.