All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that the instant sales contract was rescinded on September 11, 2013, which was notified by the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant’s notice of May 7, 2013 was “the peremptory notice of performance,” and rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the contract was rescinded by the said notice, and that the Plaintiff was in a state of delay in the payment of the remainder due to sales contract.

Furthermore, it was determined that the defendant's claims recognized within the scope of the defendant's counterclaim and the plaintiff's claims for return of the purchase price and the legal interest claims arising from the set-off date were extinguished within the equivalent amount.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the time of cancellation or by inconsistent reasoning, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of

B. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that there was no legal interest as to the amount equivalent to the penalty that the Plaintiff has to pay to the Defendant out of the sales price paid by the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Defendant’s obligation to return the sales price following the cancellation of the sales contract and the Plaintiff’s obligation

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to penalty, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Supreme Court Decision 2015Da207679, 207686, 207693 Decided December 10, 2015 cited as the grounds of appeal is different from this case, and thus, cannot be invoked in this case.

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court did not perform the Defendant’s obligation to pay any balance even with the Defendant’s repeated notice for about one year and five months from the remainder payment deadline, such as explicitly requesting the cancellation of the sales contract, because it is difficult to pay the balance.