1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the intervenor accepting the defendant is dismissed.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is based on the first instance judgment's reasoning.

The phrase “project” is added to the phrase “project” (hereinafter “instant reconstruction project”), and the phrase “Plaintiff shall complete the registration of incorporation on July 31, 2003, pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Addenda of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “Urban Improvement Act”) (hereinafter “the Addenda of this case”), and add “the Plaintiff shall complete the registration of incorporation on July 31, 2003.”

The term “B” in the construction contract “B” and “B” in paragraph 1(c).

The term "the instant construction contract" in this subsection shall be construed as "the instant joint project agreement", and shall be referred to in Section 1-C.

subsections and d.

Paragraph (h) “The main complex building of this case” is dismissed as “the building of this case,” and Paragraph (g) of Article 1, “The supplementary intervenor of the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor leased each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant dispute”) among the general sale price of this case to the Defendant succeeding intervenor around June 2017, and Paragraph (g) of Article 1, “h. The supplementary intervenor of the Defendant succeeding intervenor leased the instant dispute to the Defendant succeeding intervenor around April 1, 2019, and the supplementary intervenor of the Defendant succeeding intervenor occupied and used the instant dispute from the time of the acquisition intervenor from the time of the acquisition intervenor,” and cited it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, in addition to adding A evidence No. 89 to the grounds for recognition.

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Defendant 1”) and the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Defendant 2 Intervenor”) leased the instant dispute price from the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor”). For the following reasons, the Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor and the second Intervenor were not entitled to lease the instant dispute price.