1. All of the appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the counterclaim claims added in the first instance are dismissed.

2...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court added the judgment as to the preliminary counterclaim claim added at the court of first instance as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, since it is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact-finding of the court of first instance or the fact-finding of the defendant's assertion (including the defendant's assertion that the contract of first instance will be rescinded on the ground of the plaintiff's failure to deliver a written consent to the use of land D), even though the witness stand stand for the testimony of the court of first instance, and as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On August 20, 2015, the Defendant’s judgment on the ancillary counterclaim additionally added at the trial. Since the instant contract was rescinded from the time when the real estate purchased by the Plaintiff was not enough to obtain a building permit due to K’s notification on August 20, 2015, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff should return the down payment of KRW 120 million to the Defendant by performing the duty to restore, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate. Thus, the defendant's appeal and the counterclaim added as preliminary in the trial are dismissed as it is without merit.