1. All appeals by Defendant (Appointed Party) and Appointed D Co., Ltd. are dismissed;

2. The appeal costs.

1. The facts-finding and judgment of the first instance court are justified, considering the evidence submitted by the defendant to the court of first instance as well as the evidence duly examined by the court of first instance.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the following dismissal or addition, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The dismissal of the judgment of the court of first instance in the same part is based on the 3th page 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance as the 1998 "Seoul around 196-1997."

The third page 5-8 of the first instance judgment is as follows: “B around February 4, 1997, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with C to transfer the ownership of the instant real estate (hereinafter “the first collateral payment agreement”) with C upon completion of the public study and adjustment of the ownership of the instant real estate after completion of the inspection.”

Once the third judgment of the first instance is rendered, the 5th "proof evidence" shall be deemed as "8, 10 evidence".

The first instance judgment No. 6-7 states that "the defendant submitted Eul evidence 2 by asserting that he transferred the ownership of the real estate of this case with the selected person D in accordance with the real estate exchange procedure and the claim and obligation procedure. However, according to the above evidence and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 14 and 15, and the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant asserted that the defendant purchased the real estate of this case at KRW 49 million in comparison with Eul evidence No. 2 (real estate exchange contract) in the Daegu District Court 2016Kadan1564, unlike the above evidence No. 2, the defendant merely asserted that he purchased the real estate of this case at KRW 49 million in light of the relation between the defendant and the selected person D, it is difficult to easily believe the above evidence in light of the relation between the defendant and the selected person D, and it is insufficient to recognize it only with Eul evidence No. 3, and there

3. Additional part (Judgment on the defendant's defenses, etc.) is set forth below below 6 pages 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The defendant on March 19, 2015 of this case.