1. Revocation of the judgment of the first instance, and all of the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. The reasoning of the first instance judgment is with merit to be stated in this part of the basic facts by the court.

Since it is the same as the statement in a claim, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On November 15, 2010, the plaintiff asserted by the plaintiff that the defendant Eul agreed to purchase real estate owned by the Corporation in agricultural and fishing villages at a level below 40,00 won, and cooperate with the plaintiff in processing a community civil petition and authorization so that the plaintiff can raise original animals by constructing original breeding facilities and related facilities, and if the plaintiff failed to do so, the defendant Eul agreed to transfer each of the real estate in this case to the plaintiff without compensation, and the defendant Eul jointly and severally guaranteed the above obligation of the defendant Eul. Since the defendant Eul did not acquire the above real estate and did not obtain permission related to the installation of original breeding facilities on the ground, the defendants jointly and severally liable to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership of each of the real estate in this case to the plaintiff.

The Defendants asserted that Defendant B’s duty to cooperate is premised on Defendant B’s application for the purchase of real estate owned by the Plaintiff’s agricultural and fishing village corporation and for the authorization and permission of original breeding. Since the Plaintiff did not file such application, Defendant B cannot be deemed to have fulfilled its duty to cooperate.

B. The interpretation of the relevant legal doctrine is to clearly define the objective meaning that the parties gave to the act of indicating, and it does not include only the language used, but only the objective meaning that the parties gave to the act of indicating should be reasonably interpreted according to the content of the text, irrespective of what the parties’ internal intent is.

If the objective meaning is not clearly expressed by the text expressed by the parties, the form and content of the text, and the motive and consequence of the juristic act.