1. The plaintiff's appeal and the main claim extended by this court are dismissed, respectively.

2. Demanding and expanding the costs of appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the plaintiff's addition of the following "2. Additional determination" as to the assertion added by this court, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

[Judgment of the court of first instance on the ground that the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance submitted by the plaintiff was included in Gap evidence Nos. 101-104 (including the number number), and the facts established and determined by the court of first instance are justifiable, and there were no errors as alleged by the plaintiff as the grounds for appeal). 2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant voluntarily cancelled the instant promise to sell and purchase the instant real estate between F and J. This is a tort detrimental to the Plaintiff’s rights, which is the person holding the right to provisional seizure of the instant real estate. As such, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages, and to pay KRW 10,09,340 equivalent to the H2 complex management expenses of the instant commercial building, which was paid to the managing entity of the instant commercial building on June 21, 2010, and delay damages therefrom.

B. As recognized earlier, the Defendant’s cancellation of the agreement on the instant sales contract and the cancellation of the registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership cannot be deemed as a tort against the Plaintiff. It is difficult to view that there is a separate assertion as to what proximate causal relation exists between the Defendant’s above act and the fact that the Plaintiff paid the public room management fee for H2 complex 117 among the instant commercial buildings sold in lots, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

The plaintiff's assertion in this part is that the defendant has promised to actively protect the rights and interests of the victim acting in good faith, so even if the defendant acted as a claim for restitution according to the agreement, the statement of evidence No. 104 is alone.