1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Upon the plaintiff's conjunctive claim added by this court, the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 11, 2015, the Daejeon District Court rendered a decision to commence a compulsory auction as Seosan Branch E on February 11, 2015 with respect to the instant building owned by D.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant auction procedure”). B.

On September 14, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 1,800,000 as bid bond, and was the highest price purchaser after bidding for the instant auction procedure, and the judicial assistant officials of the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court decided to grant permission for sale to the Defendant on September 21, 2015.

C. On November 16, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 25,480,00 to the Defendant for the purchase price of the instant building. The Defendant paid KRW 23,479,672 on the same day.

After that, on November 23, 2015, the registration of ownership transfer was completed due to the entrustment of registration to the defendant. D.

On November 20, 2015, the Defendant drafted a statement of obligation to transfer ownership with the purport that “the Defendant was paid the entire purchase price of the instant building on November 16, 2015, and is obliged to perform the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant building upon the Plaintiff’s request.”

(2) The reasoning of the judgment below is as follows: (a) the transfer of ownership certificate is “this case’s declaration; and (b) the agreement under this case’s declaration is “this case’s declaration”; (c) there is no dispute, and (d) there is no ground for recognition; (d) Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 7; and (e) the fact inquiry with respect to

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Plaintiff 1’s primary claim is that the Defendant paid a bid bond at the instant auction procedure and received a decision of permission for sale. However, the Defendant failed to prepare a purchase price, etc. by October 31, 2015, which is the due date for payment, and requested the Plaintiff to provide support therefor.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff decided to purchase the instant building with the Defendant and paid the amount equivalent to the purchase price to the Defendant, and the Defendant prepared the instant letter of undertaking to the Plaintiff.