1. The plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.

1. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the apartment of this case for the following reasons.

① On March 30, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase the instant apartment from the purchase price of KRW 223 million.

② Defendant, Defendant, or Licensed Real Estate Agent, did not perform his/her obligation under a sales contract and did not perform any tort, such as power of representation, thereby causing damages equivalent to KRW 5,2840,000 to the Plaintiff.

③ Under the sales contract, the Defendant is obligated to execute the sales contract for the instant apartment with the purchase price of KRW 170,160,000, which is calculated by deducting KRW 52840,000,000, to be paid to the Plaintiff from the purchase price of KRW 223,000,000,

2. In order to establish this Court’s judgment contract, the parties’ agreement is required to be reached, and such agreement is not required with respect to all matters constituting the content of the contract in question, but there is a specific agreement with respect to its essential or important matters or at least an agreement on standards and methods that may specify the future specifically.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39594 Decided November 24, 2006). Each of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the serial number) has become final and conclusive as to the apartment of this case, including the total purchase price, the amount of the down payment, the intermediate payment, and the remaining amount, the timing and method of payment, etc., in addition to the total purchase price, which is important and essential in the instant sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.

It is difficult to see that there has been an agreement on the standards, methods, etc. to specify them in detail in the future, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Ultimately, since the Plaintiff and the Defendant cannot be deemed to have concluded a sales contract for the instant apartment, the Plaintiff is premised on this.