1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except when the judgment is used or added as follows.

2. The following shall be added at the end of the fifth section at the bottom of the first instance judgment:

④ In addition, Paragraph 4 of the special terms and conditions of the sales contract of this case provides that the seller shall actively cooperate with and take responsibility for civil petition documents and consent necessary for authorization and permission. Thus, the above provision provides that the Defendant, a seller, shall obtain a written consent to the use of the V-owned land. Thus, the Defendant’s failure to obtain a written consent to the use of the V-owned land is the cause attributable to the Defendant.

The portions from the third to the fourth of the fifth of the judgment of the first instance shall be cut to the following parts:

In light of the following circumstances, the burden of proof as to the cause of nonperformance exists on the part of the obligor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da26745, Aug. 19, 2010). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff does not constitute a cause attributable to the Plaintiff as to the nonperformance, i.e., the Plaintiff, etc. at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant was aware of the existence of the existence of the Plaintiff, etc. of the existence of the remaining land of the Plaintiff at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and (ii) the special terms and conditions of the instant sales contract, i.e., paragraph (4) of the instant contract indicate that the Defendant would issue necessary documents related to his own land and would give consent to the authorization and permission procedure, and it does not appear that the Defendant would obtain a written consent to the use of the land of V, other than the Plaintiff.