1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) on the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2.Nomenclature 10, 16, the following shall be added to the parts added or dried:

【On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant clan cannot exercise his right to defense of simultaneous performance because it falls under a case where there is a significant reason to make it difficult for the plaintiff to perform the obligation to create the road according to the contract of this case, such as delay of performance or non-performance of obligation of the defendant clan. However, there is no ground to conclude that the right to defense of simultaneous performance is excluded in case where one of the parties to the contract of this case has a substantial reason for making it difficult to perform the contract of this case, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is not enough to consider that there is a significant reason to make it difficult for the plaintiff to perform the contract of the defendant clan, and therefore, the plaintiff's argument

【Until December 29, 2017, evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone, it is insufficient to recognize not only at the time the Plaintiff expressed its intent to rescind the instant sales contract against the Defendant clan, but also at the time of the instant lawsuit pending, that the Defendant clan performed the obligation to pay the remainder of the obligation to create the road of this case or provided the performance thereof, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant clan delayed the performance of the obligation to create the road of this case. [In this regard, the Plaintiff was in the status of having the deposit equivalent to the balance of the passbook in the name of X Co., Ltd., the spouse was the representative at the time of the rescission of the instant sales contract, and prepared to obtain the loan as a collateral.