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 instant case pertains to the Plaintiff seeking against the Defendant the payment of the purchase price under a real estate sales contract and the return of the loan made in the course of real estate development.

2. Basic facts

A. Relevant real estate and ownership transfer relationship on the registry 1), G field D 1,937 square meters in Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, E field 1,431 square meters, F field 1,246 square meters, G field 59 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) On January 22, 2002, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 29, 199, and the Plaintiff appears to have acquired the entire land of this case with O at KRW 1 billion (Defendant’s assertion and Eul’s evidence No. 23). 2) The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 22, 2002 as to the remainder of 1/5 shares of the instant land, respectively.

3) The Defendant acquired part of the Plaintiff’s share in the instant land and completed the registration of ownership transfer. 4) The entire shares of the Plaintiff, C, and Defendant were transferred to M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”) on March 27, 2013. The registration record of the copy of the register of real estate concerning the instant land was cancelled and closed on May 29, 2015 by implementing the land development project.

B. The Plaintiff and C intended to develop the instant land. The Plaintiff and C intended to develop the instant land. The central and access roads of the instant land are 12 square meters prior to H, 12 square meters prior to J, 12 square meters prior to J, 567 square meters prior to K, and 45 square meters prior to L, respectively (hereinafter “instant State-owned land”).

(2) Since the Plaintiff became a party to the instant land, it was necessary to purchase the said state-owned land in order to obtain the development permission for the instant land. (2) At that point, the Plaintiff discussed the situation where the Plaintiff should purchase the said state-owned land to the Defendant, and the Defendant expressed his intention to participate in the 10% of the instant land as a right holder, and thereafter on June 22, 2004 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.