1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant regarding the ancillary claim in excess of the money ordered below.

1. The scope of the judgment of this court against the defendant: ① the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the portion of the real estate in question by the defendant around February 13, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the "written confirmation of this case") in accordance with the confirmation document prepared by the defendant around February 13, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the "written confirmation of this case"); ② the preliminaryly, under the premise that the sales contract entered into between C (hereinafter referred to as the "C") and F (hereinafter referred to as the "F") with the plaintiff was accepted by the defendant, the plaintiff claimed the payment of KRW 440 million due to the return of unjust enrichment due to the cancellation of the above sales contract or compensation for damages, or the payment of KRW 440 million due to the impossibility of the performance of the obligation for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the portion of the real estate in question

The first instance court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation for unjust enrichment or damages due to the cancellation of the sales contract, on the ground that the Defendant’s obligation under the instant confirmation document was the obligation to transfer ownership of the housing site (23,32 of the drawings attached to the instant confirmation document; hereinafter “instant housing site”) that the Plaintiff intended to purchase pursuant to the instant sales contract. This dismissal of the Plaintiff’s primary claim on or around August 2012 on the ground that the instant housing site development project license was cancelled, and there is insufficient evidence to deem that the Defendant acquired the instant sales contract from C and F. As to the instant portion of the preliminary claim, the Plaintiff’s obligation to transfer ownership of the instant housing site was impossible due to the cancellation of the sales contract, and the market value of the instant housing site was higher than or higher than the sales price of the instant sales contract, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation from September 1, 2012 to the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation.