1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 12, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased free money cultivated by the Defendant and the Defendant in the land located in Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, for KRW 78 million. The down payment of KRW 25 million on the date of the contract, and the intermediate payment of KRW 10 million on the date of the contract, until May 31, 2014, and the remainder of KRW 43 million until August 31, 2014, respectively, and entered into a contract for lump sum trade with the period of shipment as of October 31, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”). B. The Defendant’s non-afforested (hereinafter referred to as “instant non-existence”).

The contract of this case is to cancel the damage caused by a studio or a difficult studio, and to manage the damage by the time of shipment.

(i) The meaning of spraying and managing pesticides is added to the special agreement.

C. By June 2014, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant a sum of KRW 40 million out of the remainder, KRW 25 million, intermediate payment KRW 10 million, and KRW 5 million, and KRW 3,400,000,000,000,000 for the seeds of this case.

Plaintiff

On September 6, 2014, the representative director F, along with the Defendant, E, etc. present at the time of the instant contract, confirmed the state of fry in the instant dry field, measured the area of the dry field with GPS, and F discovered that there is a difficult fypt (or the testimony of the witness E of the first instance trial in the absence of clear distinction, even though the fypt fypt fypt fypt fypt fypt fys).

E. After checking the state of non-payment, F demanded the Defendant to reduce the price due to the difficulties in the instant absence. While the Defendant could not respond to this request, the Defendant terminated the contract or made the remainder payment first, and entered the account number of the passbook.

F. However, as the Plaintiff did not continue to pay the remainder, the Defendant urged the Plaintiff to pay the remainder on September 16, 2014, by finding the Plaintiff’s representative director F, and the Plaintiff refused to pay the remainder on the grounds of the difficulty of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant verbally makes the payment to the Plaintiff.