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 defendant's ground of appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified when based on the evidence submitted by the court of first instance and this court.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) 4-2-3 of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as “written application for confirmation of an unauthorized building”; (b) 5-4 of the judgment is deleted as “written application for confirmation of an unauthorized building”; and (c) 4 of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the assertion emphasized or added by the Defendant in this court; and (d) see

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that it is unreasonable to notify the Plaintiff of the cancellation of the sales contract on October 22, 2018, which was the date of the execution of the sales contract, since there was a verbal agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to change the date of the execution of the sales contract to December 20, 2018 after the conclusion of the instant sales contract.

However, it is clear that the execution date of the instant sales contract was July 24, 2018 when based on the respective descriptions of No. 3-1 and No. 2, and Article 2 of the instant sales contract and Article 1 of the Special Terms and Conditions 1 of the instant sales contract, and there is no evidence to deem that there was a verbal agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to change the execution date to December 20, 2018 (the Defendant did not submit any evidence in the first instance trial and this court).

Therefore, we cannot accept the Defendant’s above assertion. In addition, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff cannot seek compensation for damages since it concluded a sales contract with the knowledge that the subject matter of the sales contract belongs to the Defendant, a seller, at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract (proviso of Article 570 of the Civil Act). However, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the knowledge of such fact, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion cannot

3. Conclusion