1. According to the claim for restitution that had been changed in exchange before the remand, the defendant shall be KRW 100,000,000 to the plaintiff.

1. After remanding, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant and Co-Defendant C Co-Defendant C (hereinafter “C”) of the first instance court to cancel the registration of real estate ownership transfer, and the first instance court requested the Defendant to enforce the procedure for the registration of real estate ownership transfer. The first instance court dismissed all of the Plaintiff’s claim.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed before the remand, while the Plaintiff withdraws the lawsuit against C at the trial court prior to the remanding, the Plaintiff exchangedly changed the lawsuit against the Defendant to seek restitution and damages (each KRW 100 million) arising from the cancellation of the sales contract. The court prior to the remanding of the case dismissed all the Plaintiff’s claims that have been changed in exchange without determining the claim for restitution.

In this regard, the Plaintiff appealed on the judgment before remanding. The Supreme Court partially accepted the Plaintiff’s appeal and reversed the part regarding the claim for restitution in the judgment before remanding, and remanded this part of the case to this court, and dismissed the remainder of the Plaintiff’s appeal.

Therefore, since the part of the plaintiff's claim (other than the part of the claim for restitution) is separated from the part of the plaintiff's claim that was changed in exchange from the trial before remand, the scope of the trial after remand is limited to the part of the claim for restitution made by the cancellation of

2. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The plaintiff's cause of claim and judgment

A. After the conclusion of the instant sales contract with the Plaintiff, the Defendant, as the cause of the Plaintiff, sold “each Defendant’s shares of each of the lands listed in Schedule 3 and 4 prior to the division,” which is the object of the instant sales contract, to C, and completed the ownership transfer registration accordingly.

Therefore, the sales contract of this case is the defendant.