1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are justified even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance is presented to this court.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, and it is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The third letter box in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed "C (7,637)" as "C (7,636m2)".

The fourth letter box of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, "the following", and "the above".

The fourth letter box of the judgment of the first instance is 67 square meters in the following 13 boxes: "D," and "67 square meters in D," respectively.

The six pages of the judgment of the court of first instance are 12 mix "former D (67m2)" as "former D (67m2)".

From 7th to 16th of the judgment of the first instance, the following shall apply:

【D. The Plaintiff is the Defendant’s 67 square meters of 534 square meters in Chuncheon City (hereinafter “67 square meters of land”).

)에 대한 매수절차를 이행하고 소유권을 이전할 의무가 있음에도 이를 이행하지 않았고, 특히 ㉠ 피고는 이 사건 매매계약 당시 원고에게 67㎡ 토지를 매수해 두었다고 한 것이 아니라 확보가 가능하다고 하였던 점, ㉡ 피고는 이 사건 매매계약 이전인 2015. 11. 2.경 67㎡ 토지가 진입로로 확보되어야 한다는 것을 알 수 없었으므로 그 토지를 매입해 둘 이유가 없었던 점, ㉢ 67㎡ 토지는 2017. 9. 8.에야 피고에게 소유권이전등기가 마쳐진 점, ㉣ 이 사건 계약 해제통지 당시에도 67㎡ 토지에 대한 매매계약서는 언급되지 않은 점에 비추어 보면, 피고가 제1심법원에 제출한 2015. 11. 2.자 매매계약서(을 제1호증의 1 는 사후에 소급하여 허위로 작성된 것이므로, 피고는 67㎡ 토지 소유권 이전에 대한 협조의무를 이행하지 않았다는 취지로 주장한다.

However, the Plaintiff.