1. The part against Defendant B among the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B is dismissed.

2...

Basic Facts

On March 21, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant B, who represented by Defendant C, to purchase KRW 416 square meters of the purchase price of KRW 95 million in the area of the purchase price for the area of KRW 416 square meters in the area of the Da-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, North Korea owned by Defendant C (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). At the time, the buyer was the Plaintiff’s name of ASEAN.

At the time of the instant sales contract, the transfer of ownership was entered into a special agreement one year after the remainder date ( March 30, 2012) at the time when the purchaser wants, and the Plaintiff paid the Defendant C the amount of KRW 5 million as the contract deposit per day, and the amount of KRW 90 million as the remainder on March 29, 2012, and the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer was completed on April 4, 2012 in the name of E, the buyer, first of all.

The Plaintiff continued to request Defendant B to register the transfer of ownership pursuant to the instant sales contract after June 2016 through text messages, etc., but the Defendants did not comply therewith.

Accordingly, on April 3, 2017, the Plaintiff sent a certificate of content to Defendant C as receiver. The purport was to cancel the instant sales contract if the registration of ownership transfer is not completed by April 15, 2017. The content certification was received by Defendant C’s father F (GG) around April 5, 2017.

On the other hand, around June 16, 2017, the Defendants provided the Plaintiff with a certificate of personal seal impression for sale necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership under the instant sales contract.

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 2 through 7, 12, 13, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 10, and 11 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the defendants' defense of this case, asserting that the plaintiff himself/herself is the purchaser of this case's sales contract. First of all, the sales contract of this case was lawfully rescinded upon the plaintiff's declaration of intent of rescission due to the defendants' non-performance of obligation, or was rescinded by the peremptory notice as of April 3, 2017, or was terminated by the notice as of April 3, 2017.