1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "Defendant B" of the first instance court 2, 16, 3, and 7 of the second instance judgment 2, 16, 3, and 7 of the third instance judgment ; "Defendant B" of the third instance judgment ; "Defendant B" of the third instance judgment ; "Defendant and Co-Defendant B of the first instance court ; "Witness D" of the fourth 17 of the fourth 17 ; "Defendant D" of the fifth 5 11 ; "the date of the pronouncement of the first instance judgment ;" "the date of the first instance judgment " of the fifth 1 ; "the date of the pronouncement of the first instance judgment ;" and "the next 2. additional judgment" of the first instance judgment , other than adding "the second 2. additional judgment" to this court ; therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

(However, the part on the separated co-defendant B of the first instance trial is excluded). 2. Additional determination

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff: (a) by deceiving D as if the Defendant would allow D to borrow part of the remaining amount of the instant sales contract at a financial institution; and (b) received KRW 40 million from D as the down payment; (c) the Defendant is obligated to return the unclaimed down payment to D; and (d) the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s claim for the refund of the down payment to D from D; (b) the Defendant is obligated to pay the unclaimed down payment KRW 35 million to the Plaintiff; (c) however, the testimony of the witness of the first instance trial and the evidence of the witness of the first instance trial alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant had concluded the instant sales contract with D by deceiving D, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise; (d) the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit, and as at the time of the instant sales contract, the Defendant did not return the down payment to D to the Plaintiff in full.