1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for this case by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the following 2.3 to the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Details to be added; and

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion B did not perform its obligation to pay intermediate payments and remainder, etc. under the instant sales contract, and notified the Plaintiff of the rescission of the instant sales contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s notice of rescission of the instant sales contract was explicitly expressed that the Plaintiff did not intend to maintain or perform the instant sales contract.

Therefore, the sales contract of this case was terminated by mutual agreement between the parties on the cancellation of contract, and its validity was also terminated by the cancellation of the sales contract of this case.

B. Determination 1) The term “contract cancellation or rescission” means a new contract, regardless of whether the parties to the contract have the right to rescission, which provides that both parties to the contract shall terminate the validity of the existing contract by agreement and return it to the same state as that of the previous contract had not been concluded from the beginning. The requirement of the agreement is that the opposite expression of intent, such as offer and acceptance of the contract, is an agreement, like the case where the contract is generally established in order to cancel the agreement. In order to establish such an agreement, the content of the intent expressed in both parties’ expression of intent should be objectively identical (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da17093, Sept. 13, 1994). 2) In order to establish the agreement, the mere fact that the Plaintiff asserts that the parties expressed in the act of expressing the parties as to the cancellation of the contract of this case cannot be objectively identical, and rather, the return of the down payment already paid