1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim are dismissed.

2.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) on September 2, 2010, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the rescission of the instant sales contract, and did not provide the Defendant with the documents related to the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the remainder, and thus, the instant sales contract remains effective.

After that, without the consent of the plaintiff on September 17, 2010, the defendant completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on the land of this case in the name of 1.2.3 of the new community credit cooperatives, and thus the plaintiff could not pay the balance of purchase and sale. Furthermore, the contract of this case became impossible for the defendant to implement the registration of creation of a new mortgage on the land of this case on February 6, 2012.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s delivery of the duplicate of the instant complaint cancels the instant sales contract, and pursuant to Article 4 of the instant sales contract, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 20 million and penalty KRW 40 million, which is KRW 20 million.

(2) The Plaintiff paid KRW 5 million to the Defendant on October 27, 2009 as a brokerage commission upon the Defendant’s request when concluding the instant sales contract.

However, the defendant is not qualified as a licensed real estate agent, and the defendant is not a broker but a direct transaction party and received a brokerage commission from the plaintiff while selling the real estate owned by him, and thus, it must be returned

(3) After the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff completed the structural construction at the expense of KRW 60,386,688, with the construction permit granted in the name of the Defendant in order to newly construct the instant land with the Defendant’s consent.

However, while the execution of the contract is delayed due to the defendant's fault.