1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

The reasons why the court of the first instance, which cited this case, stated in this case, are as follows, and the reasons why the court added additional judgments such as Paragraph 2 and Paragraph 3, are as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment. Thus, this part shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The part from “G” to the last 6th half of the 18th day of the first instance judgment is as follows.

It can be recognized that the agreement between G and D, E, and C entered into a contract with B to withdraw from the contractual relationship of the instant transfer agreement and include G as a party to the instant transfer agreement instead of entering into the contract. Therefore, G on behalf of C, still bears all the comprehensive rights and obligations arising from the instant transfer agreement relationship. However, although Defendant C still bears the obligations arising therefrom as a transferee under the instant transfer agreement, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C on the premise that Defendant C still bears the obligations arising therefrom is not correct.” As the Plaintiff purchased 269 parcel of land, including the Busan-gu H land, which is the land subject to the instant transfer agreement, from Defendant B, the obligation to pay the purchase price to Defendant B. Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount claimed for the seizure and collection order of the instant transfer agreement.

According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 9, 9, and 3, the sales of the instant land subject to the project, including the land of Nam-gu Busan, to Defendant B is an I Co., Ltd., and the party who purchased the said land and the other party who is obligated to pay the purchase price, can be acknowledged as the I Co., Ltd.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion, which was premised on Defendant B’s payment of the purchase price related to the said land to D, is not right without any need to further examine.

Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.