1. The judgment of the court of first instance modified and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim.

2. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the Defendant’s ground for rescission is that “A. The Defendant’s ground for rescission” in Section 7 of Section 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance is “a. the ground for rescission of rescission due to the Plaintiff’s delay of payment of remainder”; and (g) the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance except where the contents of Section 17 or less are replaced by the contents of Section 2.

(Ma) The part added on 2.2. 2. The instant sales contract was already invalidated on the ground that the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder by September 30, 2017, on the ground that: (a) the summary of the defense and the Defendant agreed that the Plaintiff would automatically assume the disadvantage to be terminated; and (b) the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder by September 30, 2017.

2) Whether a special contract for automatically cancelling a contract has been established or not, even if the buyer has agreed to the effect that the contract is automatically rescinded if the buyer fails to pay the price by the due date for the payment of the remainder, the contract cannot be automatically rescinded unless the seller offers performance and causes delay of the buyer. However, if there are special circumstances under which the buyer promises to perform the contract by the due date when the buyer assumes responsibility for the default over several occasions and requests the extension of the due date for the payment of the remainder and asks for the extension of the new contract, the contract shall be automatically rescinded. In addition, the buyer fails to pay the balance by the due date for the payment of the remainder, and the contract shall automatically become effective (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da32022, Oct. 27, 1992; 95Da5467, Mar. 8, 1996). Generally, the contract is concluded.