In accordance with the change of claims by this Court, attached Form 2.3 between the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed C and the Defendant

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the case where the defendant newly rendered a new argument in this court, and is further determined in paragraph 2.

(The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 3-4-5 of the 3rd 4-5 "Land" is F, G, B (Defendant), H, I, J, K, K, L, M, N,O, P, "Land" as "F, G, H, I, J, J, K, K, L, N, N, P, P, P, and the remaining land is F, G, B (Defendant), H, I, J, K, L, M, M, N, N, P, and P.

The 3th 12 parallel " September 28, 2018" shall be changed to "round that time."

Under the 5th below, the defendant's "the defendant" means "the Cheongdam Law Firm, a representative of the defendant," and both the defendant's "the 6th and the 6th and the 2nd and below "the 6th and the 4th and 11th "the defendant" are all "the Cheongdam Law Firm".

6 1) The Plaintiff appears to have “the Plaintiff” as “the Plaintiff. 7 5-9 parts of the 7th page are as follows. The instant sales contract remains in force, and the Defendant contests its validity, thereby seeking confirmation that there exists a legal relationship under the instant sales contract.

Of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, the following contents are added. 5) The remainder payment period of the sales contract of this case was not paid to the defendant by asserting that the plaintiffs 5 asserted that the payment date of the remainder payment of the sales contract of this case was completed prior to partition of co-owned property as to the land of this case. It can be deemed that the plaintiffs actually refused the performance of the payment obligation of the remainder payment of the sales contract of this case. Thus, the defendant's 4 to 10th 1 of the sales contract of this case on the ground of the above plaintiffs' refusal of performance is as follows.

With respect to the shares of 637/1,000 out of the shares of 1/3, the ownership of the instant land before subdivision between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, February 24, 2017.