1. As to KRW 350,00,000 and KRW 300,00,000 among the instant lawsuits whose exchange had been changed in this court in exchange,

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal of the part of the ground for recognition of the 4th g) of the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

H. On October 31, 2018, the instant lawsuit was pending in the appellate trial, the rehabilitation procedure for the Defendant was commenced on October 31, 2018, and the Plaintiff reported the right to recover from the cancellation of the instant real estate sales contract as a rehabilitation claim in the said rehabilitation procedure. However, inasmuch as M and N, a joint manager of the Defendant, who is the rehabilitation debtor, raised an objection thereto, taken over the instant lawsuit, and the Plaintiff modified the purport of the claim by the rehabilitation claim confirmation claim against the Defendant.

The rehabilitation procedure against the defendant was completed on June 3, 2019 while the lawsuit of this case was pending in the appellate court, and the defendant took over the lawsuit of this case again.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 8, Gap's 10 through 14 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. 1) The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a second sales contract for the plaintiff and the second sales contract. Since the plaintiff and the defendant concluded the second sales contract, they concluded the second sales contract that "the plaintiff confirmed that KRW 350 million, including the down payment, etc., of the first sales contract that was already paid to the defendant, was attributed to the defendant, and the plaintiff did not raise any objection thereto," among the lawsuit in this case, the part of the claim for the confirmation of rehabilitation claims for the above KRW 350 million and its statutory delay damages are unlawful because they are in violation of the second sales contract for the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's claim as to the second sales contract for the second sales contract for the second sales contract for the plaintiff's non-performance of obligations, Article 9 (7) of the second sales contract for the plaintiff's assertion is not a violation of the second sales contract for the plaintiff's non-performance of obligations.