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 reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following changes:

2. Matters modified;

A. On the seventh day of the judgment of the court of first instance, [the plaintiff continued to discuss the sale of real estate as stated in Paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 after the notice of the cancellation of the second sale contract of March 9, 2009 by the plaintiff and the defendant B, so the plaintiff could not clearly know when the second sale contract was lawfully rescinded. Thus, the above extinctive prescription did not proceed. However, the extinctive prescription does not proceed only from the time when the right can be exercised objectively arises, and only from the time when the right can be exercised, and it does not proceed to the time when the right can not be exercised." In the case where "it is impossible to exercise the right" means the case where there is a disability in the exercise of the right, such as the non-performance of the period or the non-performance of the conditions. Even if the plaintiff was unaware of the existence of the right or the possibility of exercising the right and was not negligent, such cause does not constitute a legal ground (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da32053, Mar. 31, 2092].

(b) No. 2.B. of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance.

2) change paragraphs (b) and (b) as follows:

In relation to “B,” the Plaintiff was released from the second sales contract by notifying Defendant B of his rescission on May 2, 2012. However, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit before the lapse of five years from that time.