매매대금
1. The part of the judgment in the first instance against the applicant (quasi-Appellant, and the plaintiff succeeding to a new trial) shall be revoked;
2...
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "J" of Part 7 of Part 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance is as "P"; "K" of Part 8 is as " Q"; "L" of Part 9 is as "R"; "No. 31, 87" of Part 10 is as "No. 30, Oct. 30, 87; "No. 2007 Foundation 45, "B" of Part 8, "No. 9 of Part 8," "No. 2007 Foundation 45," "No. 45," and "No. 2007 Agency No. 45," of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the part concerning the plaintiff's reexamination under paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. On August 28, 2003, the succeeding intervenor filed an application for intervention on the ground that he acquired rights based on a sales contract as to real estate under the protocol of quasi-deliberation against the defendant under which the plaintiff succeeded to a new trial had been filed on August 28, 2003. However, the succeeding intervenor's application for intervention on the succeeding intervenor is premised on the premise that the existence of grounds for retrial exists as to the plaintiff's request for retrial, and the case on the merits will be restored (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da22473, 92Da2480, Dec. 27, 1994), 3. of the first instance judgment and 3. of the first instance judgment, insofar as the existence of grounds for retrial is not recognized, and thus the case is not restored, the succeeding intervenor's request for intervention on the succeeding intervenor's ground is unlawful.
3. Matters to be judged additionally;
A. In order to avoid returning the above purchase price by failing to return the said purchase price, the Plaintiff conspired to submit a method of attack and defense that may affect the judgment at the time of the instant judgment subject to a retrial, even though all the members of the re-adjudication used the purchase price on the said real estate received from the re-adjudication for the Defendant, and thereby, thereby obstructing the submission of a method of attack and defense that could affect the judgment.