The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

According to the reasoning of the judgment, since the original judgment did not have been paid to the Plaintiff as the sale price for the land, the original judgment was recognized that the sale contract for the land was not cancelled at the same time, and the Plaintiff did not perform the registration of ownership transfer for this real estate, and the contract for the transfer of this real estate is not determined to be implemented until the date of payment. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of remaining land can not be seen as having been made definitely because the ownership of the land was not determined to the extent that the sale price for this case was not determined in accordance with the law, and it cannot be viewed that the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of the transferred land was not against the Plaintiff, and this disposition for payment of remaining land was not unlawful because the original judgment became final and conclusive in light of the records that the ownership of the land was not transferred to the Plaintiff, and thus, it cannot be viewed that there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of the transferred land, which is the transfer price for sale of this case’s land.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Young-young (Presiding Justice)