1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this part of this Court cited it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

◎ 제1심 판결 2쪽 11행의 “주택건설사업권 양도양수 계약을 체결하였는데”를 『주택건설사업권 양도양수 계약을 체결하였는데(이하 ‘이 사건 사업권 양도양수계약’이라 한다

i)in Doro-friendly;

◎ 제1심 판결 이유 4쪽 아래에서 14, 15행의 “‘시행권 및 사업권 양도각서’를 작성해주었는데”를 『‘시행권 및 사업권 양도각서’를 작성해주었는데(이하 ‘이 사건 시행권 및 사업권 양도각서’라 한다

i)in Doro-friendly;

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court concerning the cause of the claim is set forth in Section 2-A of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition as follows:

Since it is the same as the statement in the claim, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

◎ 제1심 판결 이유 5쪽 본문 마지막 행 아래에 다음과 같이 추가한다.

The Defendant led to the statement in the preparatory brief dated March 10, 2017 from the date of the second pleading of the first instance trial to “the fact that the Defendant and C have agreed to acquire the right to enforce and the right to operate the instant business separately from the transfer and acquisition of the instant business rights,” but the Defendant asserted that the said confession would be against the truth and to be cancelled due to mistake when the said confession came to this court. However, in light of the following circumstances, the whole purport of the entire pleadings can be comprehensively acknowledged by taking into account the following circumstances, it is difficult to recognize that the said confession was contrary to the truth and due to mistake. Therefore, the revocation of the confession is not effective. (1) The agreement on the transfer and acquisition of the instant business rights (No. 5 billion won from the No. 1 of the evidence No. 1) is limited to the “right to use the land”).

(2) The instant project right as of April 7, 2016.