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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

2. The Plaintiff entered into a contract to purchase the instant real estate from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and paid KRW 250,000 to the Defendant. Since the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of D with respect to the instant real estate and the obligation to register ownership transfer was impossible, the Plaintiff again requested the Defendant to cancel the instant sales contract and return KRW 250,000 to the original state.

However, in light of the following circumstances, which can be seen by adding up the evidence adopted in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, Gap evidence Nos. 10 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 5-7, and the reasoning of the judgment of first instance cited earlier, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff entered into the sales contract of this case with the defendant even if all the evidence presented to this court were collected, and there is no other sufficient evidence to view it otherwise.

Plaintiff

We do not accept the argument.

① In the seller’s column of the sales contract of this case, the Plaintiff’s seal is affixed to the buyer’s column, and the Plaintiff’s seal is affixed thereto.

② The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant, through F or F’s employees, paid KRW 240,000,000 as the price for the instant sales contract, but there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge it. In addition, the Plaintiff asserted that the first instance court paid KRW 150,000,000 to G, and that the Plaintiff paid KRW 90,000 to G differently.

③ The direct remittance of money by F to the Defendant and I is limited to KRW 101,00,000,000, and the said money is deemed to have been received between F and the Defendant for any reason other than the instant sales contract.

3. Conclusion, the first instance judgment is justifiable.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed for lack of reason.