1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons for a judgment of the first instance shall be quoted by this judgment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act citing the judgment of the first instance;

However, the judgment under the new argument of the defendants in the trial of the court shall be added as follows.

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendants asserted that the Defendants’ assertion 12 (Business Agreement) and 13 (Business Agreement Amendment Contract) set up by J and P are contrary to the provisions such as prohibition of interference in interest and prohibition of profit-making as stipulated in the second construction contract, and the contract itself was concluded for the benefit of J and P, not the interests of the owners of the building including the Defendants, and that the Plaintiff, the contracting party, is also aware of these circumstances. Thus, the proviso of Article 107(1) of the Civil Act is applied by analogy, and the contract for the second construction is invalid as a breach of trust agent due to abuse of power of representation. 2) As to the newly constructed apartment (Defendant B, Defendant B, and Defendant C, Defendant C, 701) that the Defendants purchased through lot as a result of the instant reconstruction project, the Plaintiff did not carry out the registration of ownership preservation under the name of the Defendants, and thus, the Plaintiff’s duty of registration of ownership preservation and the Defendants’ obligation to carry out the registration of ownership transfer of each of the instant apartment.

B. 1) In a case where the other party knew, or could have known, that the expression of intention, which is not a true intention, was made by an agent, and that the intention of the agent was in breach of trust for the benefit of himself/herself or a third party against his/her own interest or will, the principal cannot be held liable for the act of the agent under an analogical interpretation of the proviso of Article 107(1) of the Civil Act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da13838, Jun. 25, 2009). B. 12 and 13 according to the purport of the entire arguments and arguments, J and P are established either the Plaintiff and Q.