1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is not less than 296 square meters prior to Gwangju Mine-gu C.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Determination on the main claim

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff paid the full purchase price pursuant to the instant sales contract to the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the instant land on May 12, 2016, barring any special circumstance.

B. On September 21, 2017, the summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1), on the part of the Plaintiff, the Defendant paid all documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer to the law firm E office and completed the registration of ownership transfer by October 13, 2017, and notified the Plaintiff of the purport that “if the remainder is not paid by the said date, the instant sales contract shall be rescinded.” The Plaintiff is subject to a special agreement to the instant sales contract, and the instant building on the ground (hereinafter “instant building”).

(2) Even if the Plaintiff’s refusal to implement the instant sales contract at the beginning of October 2017, the Plaintiff’s refusal to cancel the contract, and the Plaintiff’s refusal to perform the contract at the time of delay of performance, the requirements for the cancellation of the contract are very mitigated in comparison with the termination of the contract at the time of delay of performance, as the instant sales contract was rescinded due to the Plaintiff’s refusal to perform the contract at the beginning of October 2017. (2) In the case of the cancellation of the contract due to the Plaintiff’s refusal of performance, the requirements for the cancellation of the contract are considerably mitigated in comparison with the contract at the time of delay of performance as the contract is not required due to the Plaintiff’s refusal of performance, and the Plaintiff’s refusal of performance is explicitly expressed.