All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff and the Intervenor.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the allegation that the sales contract of this case as stated in the judgment of the court below was finally null and void on the ground that the competent authority rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion as follows, i.e., returned land transaction application with respect to the land of this case as indicated in the judgment below. The sales contract of this case was not obtained at the time of entering into a contract, but it was concluded on the premise of the permission, and it was effective as long as the permission was obtained thereafter. Since the Plaintiff’s assistant participant C (hereinafter “C”) delayed the payment of the remainder, etc. under the sales contract of this case, the court below determined that the Defendant’s highest notice of performance and the declaration of

Furthermore, the lower court acknowledged that: (a) the Defendant entered into a civil petition with Sungnam-gu Subdivision V and W in order that C will not be incorporated into the road site; (b) received 100 million won in total from the Defendant on December 12, 2004 and January 19, 2005 in consultation expenses; and (c) thereafter, the Defendant agreed to return all of the money received without civil petition; (d) each of the above land was incorporated into the road site and borrowed by Sungnam-si; and (b) on April 21, 2005, the Defendant borrowed 50 million won from the Defendant from November 30, 2005 to the due date for repayment; and (e) determined on the grounds of the Defendant’s set-off, the lower court determined that: (a) the aforementioned agreed amount, the borrowed money and the damages for delay; and (b) the Defendant’s claim for restitution against the Defendant following the cancellation of the sales contract of this case as well as the claim for restitution against the Defendant.

2. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and contrary to logical and empirical rules.