1. The plaintiff's appeal and the additional selective claims filed by this court are all dismissed.

2. After filing an appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as follows, except where the judgment on the selective claims that the plaintiff added to this court is added as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On May 30, 2015, "Until May 30, 2018," Part 4, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 3, 4, 3, 3, 4, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 1, 5, 1, 1, 5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 4.

3. The addition;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff, at the Plaintiff’s expense, increased the value of the instant real estate by carrying out the basic construction for flatization work on the instant real estate, and the increased value is currently existing.

The Plaintiff rescinded the instant sales contract on the grounds of the Defendant’s apparent declaration of non-performance, and already delivered the instant real estate to the Defendant.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 203(2) of the Civil Act, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the royalty of KRW 49,730,00,00, the cost of basic construction, which is the cost of basic construction, for the benefit of the instant real estate, KRW 23,558,483, wage of KRW 30,025,00, total of KRW 103,313,483, and delay damages therefor.

B. The judgment that the instant sales contract cannot be deemed to have been rescinded due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation is identical to the facts examined in the above basic facts, and thus, the Plaintiff’s status on a different premise is the same.