1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

On October 14, 2008, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was the representative of the Plaintiff Company E, and purchased a total of twenty parcels from Defendant B for KRW 1,150,000,000, including Jeju F (hereinafter “instant land”). In fact, the instant land was not owned by Defendant B, but owned by Defendant D., and Defendant D and C had the Plaintiff enter into the instant sales contract with Defendant B by inducing the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to cancel the instant sales contract on the instant land due to Defendant B’s impossibility of performance. Defendant B is obligated to refund KRW 65,395,000 for the purchase price corresponding to the instant land, and Defendant D and C have concluded the instant sales contract by deceiving the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 65,395,00 and delay damages.

The Defendants’ assertion was not the subject matter of the instant sales contract, and the part of the sales contract (No. 1-1) submitted by the Plaintiff stating the parcel number of the instant land is written by the Plaintiff.

The Defendants did not belong to the Plaintiff.

Judgment

First, we examine whether the land of this case is the object of the contract of this case.

The Plaintiff asserted that the instant land was the subject matter of sale and submitted as evidence a sales contract (No. 1) stating the parcel number of the instant land in the instant sales contract.

Meanwhile, according to the statement of evidence No. 1-3, around February 18, 2008, the market price of the land including the land in this case was appraised at the request of the president of the NAF as the debtor, G, who is the husband of the defendant B, as the debtor around February 18, 2008, including the land in this case. The land in this case is adjacent to the remaining 19 parcels among the subject matter of the sales contract in this case.

However, the part of the sales contract (No. 1) for the submission of the plaintiff, stating the lot number.