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. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for a provisional registration cancellation and ownership transfer registration acceptance and a monetary payment claim for a monetary payment of KRW 30 million. The court of first instance accepted all other claims except the partial damages for delay in the said monetary payment claim.

In this regard, the defendant appealed only to the part of the monetary payment claim, so this Court's judgment is limited to the above part of the monetary payment claim.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim for monetary payment

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for adding “Evidence Nos. 8, 10, 15, 17, and evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4 of A” to the 19th sentence on the grounds of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, as it is, in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

H. “Around March 16, 2014, the number of lots of housing units for the portion of housing units for the housing units in the instant housing complex was allocated to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was sold in lots. On the other hand, the Plaintiff first refused to transfer the instant housing units. On the other hand, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that he would submit documents necessary for the transfer of ownership on the instant housing units around May 15, 2014, which was before the registration of the site ownership regarding the instant housing units, and notified the Defendant that he would implement the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership on the instant housing units even around July 21, 2014, which was after the completion of the registration of the site ownership, but the Defendant demanded the Defendant to compensate for considerable damages for the instant housing units when refusing to receive the housing units.

B. According to the above facts of determination as to the Plaintiff’s cause of claim 1, the Defendant, according to the compensation agreement dated December 24, 2013, purchased the instant main apartment 202, and KRW 30 million.