1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 13, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendant and Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1805 Dong 801 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with respect to the following (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

The purchase price of KRW 235,00,000, down payment of KRW 23,000,000, intermediate payment of KRW 10,000 (payment on November 22, 2016) and the remainder of KRW 202,00,000 (payment on December 21, 2016) and the maximum debt amount of KRW 161,640,000 on the apartment of this case shall be cancelled in repayment of the remainder when the remainder is paid.

If a seller or a purchaser fails to fulfill the terms of this contract, he/she may be notified in writing and rescinded.

The parties to a contract may claim damages due to the cancellation of contract to the other party, and the down payment shall be considered as the basis for damages.

B. The Plaintiff paid down payment and intermediate payment, but failed to prepare any balance on December 21, 2016.

C. On December 21, 2016, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to cancel the sales contract unless the remainder is paid by December 28, 2016.

On December 28, 2016, the Plaintiff expressed his intention to pay KRW 67,00,000, excluding the actual amount of debt of the right to collateral security, and the Defendant expressed his intention to cancel the instant sales contract on the job.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

A. The instant sales contract was rescinded due to the Defendant’s unilateral rejection of performance.

The defendant is obligated to return the down payment of KRW 23,00,000 to the plaintiff and pay KRW 23,000,000 to the damages.

B. The evidence alone prior to the determination is insufficient to recognize that the instant sales contract was rescinded due to the Defendant’s fault.

According to the facts of recognition, the sales contract of this case goes against the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the remainder.