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 reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. On September 20, 2015, the Defendant asserted that “(i)” was revoked by phone call from the Plaintiff’s mother G on September 27, 2015 and notified the Defendant that the sales contract was revoked by 8,00,000 won if the Defendant’s mother F did not pay KRW 8,00,000 by September 27, 2015, while the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that there was no fact that the Defendant received such phone call from the Defendant.

The testimony of the witness F and I of the first instance trial who seems to conform to the above facts of the defendant is difficult to believe, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. 1 The argument is without merit, and there is no reason to consider it.

2) (A) First of all, the Defendant’s assertion on the rescission of the instant contract based on the Plaintiff’s breach of contract (performance delay) is acknowledged according to the health class, the evidence No. 3, and the fact that the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on October 16, 2015 that the instant contract would be rescinded through the content certification.

However, one of the parties to a bilateral contract can not cancel the contract for reasons of default unless it provides the performance of one's own obligation and gives the notice of performance within a reasonable period of time. The evidence submitted by the defendant alone is sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant notified the payment of the remainder before the notice of cancellation of the said bilateral contract, the fact that the defendant provided the plaintiff with the obligation to register ownership transfer is insufficient, and there is no other evidence, so the declaration of termination made by the