1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as stated in paragraph (2) below. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

(a) the term “witness” in Part 4 of the judgment of the first instance shall be read as “the first instance court witness”;

(b) Nos. 5 of the first instance judgment shall be followed by the following:

Deposit 250,000,000 won and damages for delay calculated from April 22, 2015, following the delivery date of the instant Ddong Housing, shall be refunded.

(c) by striking 7 through 19 of the first instance judgment.

The following shall be added to the 7th sentence of the first instance court, “not” of the 18th sentence:

(Generally, the lessee refuses to deliver the leased object by exercising his/her right to reply to simultaneous performance before the refund of the deposit for lease. However, the Plaintiff delivered the instant D's house to the Defendant in order.

Part 15 of the Decision of the first instance shall add to the following:

다. 원고의 당심에서의 추가주장에 대한 판단 1) 주장 요지 원고와 피고는 2014. 8.경 이 사건 매매계약과 전세계약을 체결하였는데 이 사건 C 상가의 구조적인 문제로 위 상가를 담보로 한 대출이 불가능하게 된 사정을 2014. 11.경에 알게 되었음에도 2014. 12.경 매매계약서를 작성하여 계약 내용을 구체적으로 정하였다. 따라서 원고와 피고가 담보대출 불가능을 이유로 이 사건 매매계약을 합의해제 또는 해지한 것이 아니라 피고가 2015. 2. 25. 일방적으로 이 사건 매매계약과 전세계약을 파기한 것이므로, 피고는 원고에게 전세보증금 및 이에 대한 지연손해금을 반환하여야 한다. 2) 판단 ㈎ 이 사건 각 계약이 2014. 8.경 체결되었다는 사실을 인정할...