The appeal by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is dismissed, respectively.

2. The complaint is filed by this court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment by the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and such reasoning is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(However, the first instance court’s four pages 2 and 3 are deleted, and the fourth 10 pages “375,000,000” is changed to “three hundred million Won”; 2. Determination as to the primary main claim

A. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the purchase and sale reservation between the plaintiffs and the defendant as to the defendant's share in the real estate of this case was concluded on July 6, 2009, which was set at KRW 375,000,000. Thus, the defendant, barring any special circumstance, is obligated to implement the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership for each share in the real estate of this case on July 6, 2009, on the basis of the provisional registration of this case as to shares of KRW 1,682/10,091.

B. 1) The defendant's assertion, etc. 1) The court's decision as to "the invalidity of a false representation" is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is stated in this part of this part, and thus cites it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2) The defendant's decision as to the non-performance of the settlement procedure (A) the provisional registration of this case is a transfer of security for the weak meaning that the defendant's future claim against the plaintiffs, which may arise when the plaintiffs subrogated for a loan of a F organization by the defendant, was completed in order to secure the defendant's future claim for reimbursement against the plaintiffs. Since the plaintiff did not undergo the settlement procedure

(B) However, in full view of the following circumstances revealed in the facts acknowledged earlier, the evidence presented by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants completed the provisional registration of this case to secure the future obligation to pay indemnity against the Plaintiff.