1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. The plaintiff claimed damages for delay from the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, but the judgment of the court of first instance cited the damages for delay calculated from the day after the above delivery date in the disposition of the court of first instance, but did not dismiss the remaining claims of the plaintiff, and did not decide on the grounds

Therefore, since the Plaintiff’s claim for delay damages on the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case is still pending in the first instance court, the part that claims for delay damages on the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case within the scope of the judgment of this

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the instant case is added to the following judgments, thereby admitting the judgment of the court of first instance in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

The defendant asserts that the defendant does not have the responsibility to return the down payment as a seller in connection with the cancellation of the contract of this case according to the special agreement of this case as follows.

Section 2(A) No. 2(the supply contract, 6 pages).

B. The seller’s duty and responsibility relating to the instant sales contract (the Defendant’s words) are not prescribed as “A” (the consignee and contractor Co., Ltd., Ltd.) and “B (the consignee and contractor Co., Ltd., Ltd.)” (the Defendant’s words) and “A” unless there is any cause attributable to the seller.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1 million out of the down payment prior to the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and the Plaintiff’s answer was presented to Defendant G employees by asking about whether the Plaintiff, a foreign national, could grant a loan, and paid KRW 5 million out of the down payment on the date of conclusion, and again asked I to the Defendant’s employees, and received information on the documents required for the loan on the premise that it is possible, so the Defendant’s assertion is reasonable. Therefore, the Defendant’s mistake, which is possible as a foreigner, cannot be said to have been the Defendant’s fault.