1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. As a result of examining the Plaintiff’s grounds for appeal and the evidence submitted by the court of first instance, the legitimacy of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the instant case is examined. The reasoning of the court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the part of the “judgment” of the 3rd to 4th of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part of the 12 to 4th of the 3rd of the judgment of the court of first instance was examined as

2. The part to be dried;

Judgment

Although it is impossible to change the name of the existing factory construction on the land of this case as alleged by the plaintiff, it is examined whether the defendants belong to it, or purchased the land of this case due to the plaintiff's mistake, and the record of Gap evidence No. 4, part of witness F of the trial witness of this case, fact inquiry conducted by the court of first instance on March 25, 2016 to the chemical market of this case, there is no fact that the plaintiff filed an application for change of the name of the factory construction until the trial of the court of first instance or rejected it from the competent authority. Rather, according to the fact inquiry conducted by the court of first instance on June 21, 2016 to the chemical market of the court of first instance, it is not believed that the factory construction approval under the Industrial Cluster Act has the nature of the alternative administrative act, and it is possible to change its name even before the factory construction is established, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion on a different premise is without merit.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that he cannot succeed to the approval of factory construction under the Industrial Cluster Act since he did not take over the approval of factory or factory construction from D and E as he purchased only the land of this case from Defendant A again.

However, according to Article 569 of the Civil Code, the rights in the name of another person can also be regarded as the object of the sales contract, as well as the rights in the name of another person under Article 569 of the Civil Code.