The judgment below

The part against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) regarding the principal lawsuit shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”)’s ground of appeal

A. citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the lower court determined that the instant sales contract was lawfully rescinded in accordance with the notice of cancellation by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) due to the Defendant’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff, such as the unpaid balance.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the lower court is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the causes attributable to the rescission

B. citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below determined that the penalty provision of this case cannot be deemed null and void because it is a clause which has lost fairness in violation of the principle of good faith and sincerity unfairly unfavorable

Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the invalidation of the terms

C. In addition, among the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the Plaintiff promised to limit the scope of the Defendant’s obligation to pay the penalty to the amount equivalent to the down payment, and treat the remainder of the Defendant’s obligation as extinguished.

The argument that the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant interest on the price of selling the apartment of this case to the new purchaser is a new argument that was raised in the final appeal and cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. The former Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions (amended by Act No. 10169, Mar. 22, 2010; hereinafter “former Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions”) provides that “any clause of a standardized contract that unreasonably reduces the duty of a business operator to restore or compensate for damage caused by the cancellation or termination of a contract” shall be null and void.

§ 9.