1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4.

On September 27, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant C on the part of 276 square meters in a specific part of 749 square meters in North-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which was trusted by Defendant B to the Korea Real Estate Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant contract”), and the purchase price of 350,000,000 square meters in a specific part of 749 square meters in a building and its ground and the 91 square meters in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant contract”), and entered into a sales contract with Defendant B on the same day as the date of the contract, and paid the balance of 330,000,000 won on October 29, 2013 at the same time as the documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership. In addition, Defendant B divided a specific part of 276 square meters in a land among F land, and agreed to change the land category of H land into the site.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid the down payment of KRW 20,000,000 to Defendant B around that time.

C. On December 2, 2013, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendants a content-certified mail containing a declaration of intent to cancel the instant contract on the grounds that the specific portion of F, which was subject to sale, was not divided, among the said F, on the grounds that it was not divided.

On December 2, 2013, the land category of H was changed from the former site to the former site, and on December 9, 2013, the specific part of the said F-land was divided into G large scale 276 square meters on December 9, 2013.

E. Meanwhile, Defendant B filed the instant lawsuit through a written response on January 8, 2014, and expressed his/her intent to rescind the instant contract on the grounds that the Plaintiff clearly expressed his/her intention to refuse performance. Around that time, the duplicate of the instant reply was served on the Plaintiff.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff, under the instant contract, was obligated to divide a specific portion of the F land into the land and change the category of H land by the date of the remainder payment, and the Plaintiff delayed its performance. The Plaintiff was on December 2, 2013 and on December 10, 2013.