The judgment below

Among them, the ancillary claim against Defendant C is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records of the case, the following facts are revealed.

On February 10, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant C with a content that purchases the two underground floors and the two to eight underground floors (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the said Defendant among the instant buildings, which are an aggregate building of the eight-story underground floors and the eight-story underground floors (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

After that, on October 23, 2015, the Plaintiff and Defendant C entered into a sales contract with the effect that the sales price of the instant real estate was KRW 8.4 billion, and that the remaining KRW 6.6 billion should be paid by November 6, 2015 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). In addition, the Plaintiff and Defendant C agreed that “if the written consent, etc. to the construction permission of the owners of the first floor and the first floor above the instant building (hereinafter “written consent, etc.”) is not provided by November 6, 2015, the remaining payment date, the instant sales contract shall be null and void in its entirety without any special procedure or notification” (hereinafter “instant agreement”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought a loan to pay the remainder pursuant to the instant sales contract.

B. However, around November 24, 2015, Defendant C did not provide the Plaintiff with a written consent to the construction permission of the first floor and the first floor owners on the ground of the instant building until November 6, 2015, which was the remainder payment date under the instant sales contract, and thus, the instant sales contract became null and void pursuant to the instant agreement. Defendant C did not have any money actually received under the instant sales contract. Therefore, Defendant C did not have any money, and thus, Defendant C did not have any money to be returned to the Plaintiff. As such, Defendant C did not have any money to be returned to the Plaintiff to the effect of the instant sales contract.

2. The plaintiff of the first instance judgment is primarily based on the above sales contract, etc. on the premise that the sales contract of this case is valid, and the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership to the real estate of this case is implemented against the defendants.