1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. On August 14, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased the instant real estate and buildings from the Defendant for KRW 100 million; (b) purchased the down payment of KRW 10 million at the time of a contract; and (c) concluded a sales contract to pay the remainder of KRW 30 million at the time of August 27, 2014 and the remainder of KRW 60 million to the Defendant on October 31, 2014 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); and (d) paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 10 million to the Defendant on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap's evidence 1, Eul's evidence 1]

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant would be able to obtain a loan of KRW 30 million,00,000 as a security, and thus, concluded the instant sales contract by allowing the Defendant to obtain a loan. Since the Plaintiff becomes aware of the fact that the loan was impossible as a result of inquiring of the Young Saemaul Community Fund and the original Korea Development Bank, the Plaintiff’s purchase contract was rescinded, the Defendant is obligated to return the down payment of KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff by restitution.

B. Since the Defendant’s assertion failed to perform the obligation to pay the intermediate payment and the remainder after the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and the Defendant expressed his intent that the instant sales contract will be rescinded if the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder to the Plaintiff twice on November 3, 2014 and November 28, 2014, the instant sales contract was rescinded due to the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff, and the down payment that the Plaintiff paid to the Plaintiff was confiscated as the scheduled amount of damages, the Defendant did not have any obligation to return the down payment.

3. The judgment was based on the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant could borrow a loan for purchase at the time of concluding the instant sales contract.

The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant sales contract was rescinded due to the Defendant’s fault is with merit, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant sales contract was concluded under this condition.