1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is a person who intends to construct an urban-type residential house after purchasing E-Building 1 and 2 divided buildings of 16 households located in Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu (hereinafter referred to as "the aggregate building in this case"), removing them, and Defendant B is a F's father, a sectional owner of 103 Dong 1 and Dong 102, and Defendant C is a sectional owner of the aggregate building in this case.

From July 19, 2015 to July 27, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased each partitioned building and the share of the site from the sectional owners of 14 households of the instant aggregate building in KRW 231,800,000 to KRW 270,000.

On July 23, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract of KRW 286,00,000 with respect to 103 units and shares in a housing site between Defendant B and Defendant B on behalf of F. On the remaining date, Defendant B demanded additional KRW 39,000,000 in addition to the purchase price and refused to deliver a document for transfer of ownership, the Plaintiff paid KRW 39,000,000 in addition to the purchase price and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

On July 23, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant C for KRW 286,00,000 with respect to KRW 102,00,00 with respect to the shares in the land and KRW 286,00,00, and Defendant C demanded additional KRW 38,950,000 in addition to the purchase price, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 6, 2015 to refuse to issue a document for registration of ownership transfer.

【No dispute over the grounds for recognition”, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (including additional number), the plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings, and the plaintiff’s assertion of the judgment as to this, are followed by the following circumstances: (a) in the event that the plaintiff fails to acquire ownership of 1.102 and 103 up to Eul’s 2015, the defendants’ assertion that the plaintiff would incur enormous economic loss, such as the loan interest on the purchase price, due to the delay in the removal and new construction work, by taking account of the following circumstances: (b) there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff’s assertion of