All appeals filed by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the principal office.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning the instant case is as stated in the judgment of the first instance, except for the rejection of each description of evidence Nos. 3 through 7 (including each number), which is insufficient to recognize the Defendant's assertion, as the parts used or added by the court of first instance and the additional documents submitted by the court of first instance under paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this is cited by the main text of Article 420 of

2. The phrase “1,345,000,000 won” in the third 7th sentence of the first instance judgment shall be deemed to read “1,345,60,000 won”.

The testimony of witness G in the 6th 4th 5th 5th of the judgment of the first instance court shall be considered as “the testimony of witness G in the first instance trial.”

The following shall be added to the 6th 15th 15th of the judgment of the first instance.

No. 42 of the first instance judgment of the first instance court, "No. 1, a licensed real estate agent who was requested by the Plaintiff to intermediate the sale and purchase of land before subdivision, was present at this court as a witness, and stated that "h, at the time when the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into the first sales contract with E, the above provisional registration was a provisional registration for preserving the right to claim the transfer of ownership, and G, who was represented by the Defendant, did not speak about that part." The following is added to the following:

“The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s claim based on the instant purchase and sale promise is groundless, as the Plaintiff consented to the sale of the land before subdivision to E, lose its validity of the instant purchase and sale promise and the new contract was concluded.

However, according to the above evidence, the sales contract with E includes the contents that the plaintiff would immediately cancel the provisional registration corresponding to the purchase area, and the object of the sales contract with E is part of the land before division, and the final decision of recommending settlement is made during the lawsuit filed by E, etc., which is part of the land before division.