1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim added at the trial is all dismissed.

3...

1. The reasons why this Court's statement concerning this part of the basic facts are as follows: (a) the church building to be newly built "B" and the building of the children's center building to be newly built "B" are as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the following to the fifth and eighth parts of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Parts]

(m) Based on the instant performance memorandum, the Defendant church filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for registration of transfer of ownership as Daejeon District Court Branching 2014Kadan21406, based on the instant written reason for donation.

On January 8, 2015, the above court held that the Plaintiff agreed to donate the land Nos. 1 and 2 to the Defendant church in accordance with the above performance memorandum and the reason for donation, and that “the Plaintiff shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for each of the above land to the Defendant church on December 21, 2011.”

n. Accordingly, the plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance (the Daejeon District Court 2015Na100585), and the appellate court's judgment revoked the judgment of the court of first instance on February 16, 2016 and declared that the claim of the defendant church was dismissed, even if the plaintiff and the defendant Eul were to be claimed for performance as a beneficiary of a contract for a third party as a beneficiary of the contract for the defendant church, the beneficiary was not specified (it is insufficient to recognize that the church, at the time of the preparation of the letter of performance and the reason for donation of this case, tried to build the church building on each of the above land and to donate each of the above land to the above land, is not the "J church" but the "the plaintiff's claim is the defendant church."

The defendant church is dissatisfied with the judgment of the appellate court and now is the Supreme Court.