1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of this court’s explanation in this part of basic facts is to substitute “attached Form” of the judgment of the court of first instance with “attached Form” of this judgment, and to accept the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for deletion of 1 B of each second week of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion on the rescission of a sales contract on the ground of the Defendant’s refusal of performance

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff intended to pay the remainder of the purchase and sale to the Defendant according to the sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) on the real estate listed in the attached list Nos. 1 through (3) and part of the real estate listed in paragraph (4) of the same list (hereinafter “instant real estate”). However, the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder of the purchase and sale on the date of payment on the ground that there is a problem, such as the registration of transfer has not been entered

However, from July 2016, the Defendant unilaterally sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content without a due demand for the payment of the purchase and sale balance, and expressed the Plaintiff’s intent not to perform the contract by asserting the rescission of the contract and the Plaintiff’s eviction.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to cancel the instant contract by delivering a preparatory document as of July 12, 2018 on the ground of the Defendant’s refusal of performance. The Defendant is obligated to trust that the Plaintiff will perform the contract and pay 8.6 million won for the purchase cost of the apparatus, which the Plaintiff incurred, to the Plaintiff for restitution and compensation following the cancellation of the contract.

B. In the case of the cancellation of a contract due to a default of obligation, the requirements for the cancellation of a contract are very mitigated when compared with the cancellation of a contract at the time of delay because it does not require the highest and simultaneous performance to be provided.

Therefore, a contract shall be concluded in addition to explicitly expressing the intention of non-performance.