1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the claim of the plaintiff corresponding to that part shall be filed by the appointed party.

1. The reasoning for the explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the part concerning “1. Facts recognized” among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The reasoning of the judgment on this part of the instant safety defense is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, “the judgment on the instant safety defense”, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination on the application for ownership transfer registration

A. Under the premise that the instant sales contract with the Defendant remains effective in the case of the Plaintiff and the Selection, M,O, and P, the Plaintiff seeks the Defendant to implement the procedure for registration of ownership transfer as to the building subject to parcelling-out simultaneously with the payment of balance in parcelling-out and simultaneous performance.

On the other hand, the defendant's defense that the sales contract was cancelled for the reason of the default of the sale price.

Therefore, this issue is whether the sales contract of the designated parties has been cancelled or not.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings in the evidence Nos. 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 6 through 9 (including the provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the following facts are as follows: (a) 605,018,400 won of the sales balance to be paid until February 17, 2010; (b) 515,035,000 won of the sales balance to be paid until February 23, 2010; (c) 540,280,015 won of the sales balance to be paid until April 26, 2010; and (d) 584,000,000,000 won to be paid until April 26, 2010 in the sales contract of this case can be acknowledged as having been cancelled by the Defendant’s peremptory notice to the purchaser after setting a certain period of time; and (e) 21, 2010 of the sales contract of this case.

According to the above facts of recognition, the above designated parties and the defendant.