1. The Defendant’s KRW 100,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from February 28, 2018 to June 7, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 25, 2017, the Plaintiff decided to purchase the land, etc. C (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Defendant in Seosan-si (hereinafter “instant real estate”) for KRW 1.25 billion (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and paid KRW 50 million out of the down payment of KRW 125 million on the same day.

B. On December 4, 2017, the Defendant unilaterally notified the Plaintiff that the sales contract will be rescinded, and thereafter, sold the instant real estate to a third party.

C. The Defendant returned to the Plaintiff the down payment of KRW 50 million.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. As seen earlier, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant sales contract was rescinded, and the Plaintiff also filed the instant lawsuit seeking the payment of the cancellation fee against the Defendant on the premise that the instant sales contract was rescinded. As such, the instant sales contract was lawfully rescinded.

Meanwhile, the Defendant’s return of the purchase price to the Plaintiff, thereby restoring the original state following the rescission of the sales contract, and the issues of the instant case are limited to the scope of compensation for damages arising from the cancellation of the sales contract.

B. In a case where only a part of the contract deposit is paid, even if the receiver could cancel the contract, the amount which serves as the basis of the contract deposit is not “the contract deposit actually received” but “the agreed contract deposit”.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da231378, Apr. 23, 2015). However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, namely, (i) the Defendant sent notification of cancellation after nine days from the date of the instant sales contract; (ii) appears to have been returned relatively promptly; and (iii) the Plaintiff was also paid the down payment, not the Plaintiff’s payment of the down payment.