1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, in addition to the entry of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is identical to the entry of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary part] Part 7 of the second part of the second part, “the Plaintiff paid 200 million won to the Defendants at the same time as the contract deposit” was read as “the Plaintiff paid KRW 20 million out of the down payment at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract to the Defendants, and additionally paid KRW 180 million as the down payment after July 20, 2016.”

A. [Supplementary ] On the second 12th 12th 2nd 2, “The Plaintiff did not pay any balance by December 27, 2016.” The second 16th end of the 16th 2nd 2nd 16th 2st 201, “The Plaintiff shall be the remainder of the due date extended by the trial ( December 20, 2016)” and the lease agreement entered into between D and E and the Defendants (the expiration date of the lease term is April 30, 2017).

The Defendants asserted that the instant sales contract (including the modified contract) cannot be rescinded on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the payment date of the remainder.

However, the Plaintiff’s assertion is inconsistent with the previous cause of claim seeking the return of the down payment due to restitution, which was rescinded by the Defendants’ declaration of intent of rescission on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s remainder payment.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 4-1,2, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 7-1 and 8, the date of entering into a lease agreement of the plaintiff's assertion is recognized as having already been after the defendants declared their intent to cancel the contract of this case on January 20, 2017. However, in the situation where the plaintiff failed to perform its obligations under the contract of this case properly, the lease agreement of this case is ultimately effective until the payment of the plaintiff's balance takes place.