1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the statement on "1. Facts recognized" among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby admitting them as they are in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff, as the initial F and/or 1/2, contributed to the purchase of KRW 2.8 billion from the Defendant Cooperative, paid KRW 2 billion among them. After which the Plaintiff prepared a contract on the right to occupy and use as of December 20, 2007 (Evidence A No. 4) with the Defendant Cooperative delegated the authority to vicariously sell the part of the instant occupation and use as of December 20, 2007, the Plaintiff would purchase the right to occupy and use of KRW 2.0 billion from the above payment to the Defendant Cooperative, and the remainder should be replaced by the amount of KRW 2.0 billion already paid to the Defendant Cooperative, and shall be offset by the damages claim that the Plaintiff had separately owned with respect to the Daren belt.

However, at the request of a carren belt, reflecting the amount of fees to be paid by the defendant union in return for the sale by proxy, the above contract for occupancy and use right stated the amount of 2.25 billion won in the form of the contract for occupancy and use right.

The defendant association also recognized that the amount was reduced due to tax issues, etc., and prepared a certificate of sale of occupation and use (as of July 17, 2009) with a total of KRW 1.7 billion (as of KRW 950 million for the plaintiff's share) to the plaintiff and F, and agreed that the payment of KRW 2.5 billion was completed as of December 20, 2007 between the plaintiff and Cloren belt is also effective.

However, the purchase contract between the plaintiff and the defendant association regarding the right to occupy and use of this case which was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant association is null and void for the purpose of providing benefits, which is an original impossibility, as follows, or is null and void due to the plaintiff's impossibility of performance or delay of performance due to the reasons attributable to the defendant association. Thus, the defendant association was null and void due to the plaintiff's cancellation.