1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 110,00,000 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from November 11, 2016 to April 6, 2018; and (b) the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 23, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant (i) agreed to complete the registration of ownership transfer of the said loan D by November 10, 2016 to the Plaintiff by November 10, 2016, on the following: (ii) the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 110 million paid to the Defendant under the name of investment deposit is substituted by the sale price for the said newly built loan E; and (iii) the Defendant agreed to complete the registration of ownership transfer of the said loan D to the Plaintiff by November 10, 2016.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

Although the basic construction of the instant land was partially performed, it was suspended from January 2016.

C. After that, each of the instant land was voluntarily decided by the F of this Court on June 27, 2016, and August 26, 2016 to G of the same court on the same date, and the auction procedure was in progress, and was sold to H on September 29, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. We examine whether the contract was cancelled due to the impossibility of performance, since the plaintiff cancelled the above contract on the ground that the obligation of the defendant to transfer ownership under the contract of this case was impossible to perform, and sought the return of the sale price already paid.

The performance of an obligation is impossible, not simply an absolute and physical impossibility, but a creditor cannot expect the realization of the performance of an obligation in light of the empirical rules or the concept of transaction in a social life.

(2) The following circumstances are revealed by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the overall purport of the pleadings as seen earlier. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da22850, Jan. 24, 2003). However, the Defendant, after receiving the sale price from the Plaintiff, did not completely perform the construction of loan until the date of closing argument of the instant case. (2) Around four months after the date of the instant sales contract.