1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 31, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendant for the purchase of buildings D (hereinafter “Officetel”) and E (hereinafter “E Officetel”) of the Dongcheon-si, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant Officetel”) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). Around May 31, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendant for the instant Officetel.

(Date of Payment of Balance: August 31, 2016). (b)

On June 1, 2016, the day following the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff paid 7 million won in total to the Defendant the down payment of the instant officetel.

(i) 2,00,000 KRW 2,00,000 officetel down payment (=5,000,000).

On August 31, 2016, the Plaintiff intended to pay a balance of loans from the FF Association. However, the Plaintiff was refused to grant a loan due to the fact that the Plaintiff had obtained a credit loan from the second financial right, and was unable to pay the balance.

The plaintiff acknowledged the above facts in the preparatory document dated November 22, 2019.

The Defendant deposited KRW 2 million on July 29, 2016, and KRW 5 million on September 23, 2016 to each Plaintiff and returned the down payment.

E. Of the instant officetels, on November 24, 2016, the instant officetels was registered for G, while the instant officetels was registered for ownership transfer to H.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal reversed the sales contract unilaterally after double selling the instant officetel to the Plaintiff.

As a result of the above acts by the Defendant, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 203,203,413 [1] ① KRW 7,00,000 in penalty equivalent to the down payment under Article 565(1) of the Civil Act ② KRW 192,00,00 in the aggregate of the rent that the Plaintiff received from the lessee by entering into a lease contract after purchasing an officetel (i.e., KRW 50,00 in a month x 24 months) (i.e., the amount equivalent to the interest of KRW 378,226,820 in the amount of the loan that the Plaintiff received for the purpose of running the housing lease business].

Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiff.