1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant is against the plaintiff 1,510,997,440 won and this.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment, except for re-written or additional deletion of part of the judgment of the first instance as stated in the following 2. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The phrase “203Kahap1517,” which reads “203Kahap1517,” which reads “2003Kahap517,” which reads “the fourth 15th 15th th 15th of the first instance judgment.”

The "main claim" in the 7th third third of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be re-written as "claim", and the "main cause of claim" in the 5th sentence shall be re-written as "the cause of claim".

The phrase "the plaintiff shall be deleted from the 7th 15th th th th th th th th th (the last th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th,

The argument is asserted.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, and 13-1 through 3 of the evidence Nos. 13-3 and the evidence revealed earlier, the part of the above land was completed and the form and size of the project were changed, and the cadastral record is also deemed to have been newly prepared, but it cannot be deemed that the above facts alone are insufficient to perform the obligation to transfer ownership.

Rather, according to the result of the survey and appraisal by the appraiser AB in the first instance trial, it is possible to recognize the fact that it is possible to specify each part of the previous land of this case among the land developed by currently dividing and arranging the land. Therefore, it is possible to register the ownership transfer when taking the procedure

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(1) “Defendants” in the 13th fourth sentence of the first instance court shall be regarded as “Plaintiffs”.

Before the 15th 15th 15th 15th son of the first instance judgment, the following shall be followed:

Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff received full payments from the Intervenor for each of the previous land of this case, the Defendant did not transfer the land.