2. The portion resulting from the principal lawsuit out of the costs of appeal.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is that of the first instance judgment except for the intervenor's new argument added by this court as follows. Thus, this court's decision is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In light of the fact that a partial intervenor added, the first contract provides that the Defendant cannot make double selling, etc. to a third party, and that there is no agreement to cancel the contract by giving up the down payment or paying a double of the down payment, and there is no agreement to cancel the contract, the contract cannot be cancelled and the contract cannot be cancelled. In addition, even if a double payment of the down payment is made without paying the down payment, in view of the purpose of the first contract and the fact that the Defendant delivers

Therefore, the Defendant, a seller, is in the position of “a person who administers another’s business” as referred to in the crime of breach of trust against the Intervenor, and thus, asserts that the instant sales contract is a double selling contract, and that the Defendant’s act of breach of trust was concluded by borrowing the Plaintiff’s name in order to obtain a resale profit, and that it constitutes an anti-social juristic act and thus

In light of the language and text of the foregoing provision on the date of the payment of the first down payment and the possibility that the intervenor may enter into a contract with at least 95% of the owners in the business site at all times, etc., the first down payment payment clause is a conditional agreement. Whether the above conditions are fulfilled depends solely on the intervenor’s circumstances, the termination clause related to the payment of the part payment under Article 3(2) of the first contract, and the statement in Gap evidence 16, etc., the first contract Article 3(1) of the first contract is a buyer.