1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as follows, except for the addition of "2. Additional Judgment" as to the allegations added by the defendant in this court, and therefore, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion agreed to terminate the instant sales contract under the condition that only part of the purchase price was paid to the Defendant, but Nonparty C agreed to accept the status of purchaser of the instant sales contract on behalf of the Plaintiff, and paid the remainder KRW 38.5 million to the Defendant.

However, the Plaintiff, who fell short of C, filed a claim for the return of the instant purchase price with the Defendant by asserting that all of the instant purchase price was paid to the Defendant, the Defendant returned all of KRW 98.5 million paid to the Plaintiff, and KRW 48.5 million paid to E designated by C, to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the argument that the Plaintiff did not receive the remainder of KRW 48.5 million out of KRW 98.5 million paid as the purchase price is without merit.

B. We examine the judgment, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge that C will take over the status of the purchaser of the instant sales contract concluded by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Ultimately, even though the Plaintiff, who is the party to the instant sales contract, notified the Defendant that he would not pay the Plaintiff’s money to the agent, as it is no longer lawful agent in the instant sales contract, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s neglect of this fact and paid KRW 48.5 million to E designated by C is a lawful return of the sales price.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 48.5 million which has not yet been returned to the plaintiff, as the restoration from the termination of the contract of this case.