1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following modifications.

[Supplementary part] Article 8(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "No claim shall be filed against the defendant" in Part 19 of the Criminal Procedure Act (Article 8(2) of the Sales Contract) shall be filed with the court of first instance as "no claim shall be filed with the plaintiff."

On the 5th judgment of the first instance court, the contract that was paid in accordance with the 12th sentence is regarded as the “paid down payment”.

The following statements are added to the 6th judgment of the first instance court that read “the position of the tensionly economically weak” as “the position of the economically weak” and “the position of the economically weak”, and subsequent to the 14th judgment, the following statements are added.

Even according to the provisions of Article 8(2) of the sales contract of this case itself, the estimated amount of compensation for damages in the event of the Plaintiff’s breach of the contract is the total amount and the required amount [the business costs invested by the Defendant]. On the other hand, the estimated amount of compensation for damages in the event of the Defendant’s breach of the contract is limited to “the already paid down payment.”

According to this, for example, where a contract is terminated at the stage after the intermediate payment was paid, as in the case of this case, the amount of damages for the Plaintiff’s breach of contract reaches “the amount of a contract deposit, the amount of an intermediate payment, and the amount required.” On the other hand, the amount of damages for the Defendant’s breach of contract is limited to “amount equivalent to the contract deposit,” and it appears that

(2) On the other hand, the first instance court’s judgment No. 15 of the first instance court’s 6th judgment added a “fixed” subsequent to the instant sales contract, and the 16th instance judgment’s 16th instance judgment did not appear to be “uncomfortable.”

On the 6th judgment of the first instance court, the obligation to pay the remaining amount under the 18th judgment is stipulated as the " obligation to pay the remaining amount".

2. The decision of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant is just.