Of the parts concerning the preliminary counterclaim of the lower judgment, the following additional payments shall be ordered.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion that the purpose of the instant sales contract can be achieved, the lower court determined that there was a serious breach of contract by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) in the instant sales contract on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and that the instant sales contract could not achieve its purpose.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the facts, etc., as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the assertion that there is no ground for recognizing the right to rescind an agreement, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, Article 12(1)A of the instant sales contract.

The title determined that the right to rescind the contract was stipulated.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of a disposal document, or by misapprehending the rules of evidence, or by misapprehending the facts.

3. As to the assertion on the scope of payment of interest due to restitution

A. In the event of the exercise of the right of statutory rescission, the need to add legal interest from the time of receipt by one of the parties to the return of the money received is stipulated in Article 548(2) of the Civil Act, which is included in the scope of restitution, and has the nature of restitution of unjust enrichment, and it does not constitute damages for delay in the duty of return. In the event that the real estate sales contract is rescinded, regardless of whether the duty of restitution owed to the other party to the other party is jointly performed or not, the seller shall pay additional interest at the statutory rate from the date of receipt with respect to the purchase price to be returned by the seller, and such legal principle does not vary

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da9123 delivered on June 9, 2000.