The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

The plaintiff shall bear the costs of appeal.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The court of this case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the reasoning below is written or the plaintiff added the judgment on the argument emphasized by this court. Thus, this case is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

제1심판결문 제3면 제1행의 “E아파트 건설사업”을 “J아파트 건설사업(이하 ‘이 사건 사업’이라고 합니다)”으로 고쳐 씁니다.

Part 3 of the first instance judgment, Part 6 and 7 of the "Succession Agreement" (hereinafter referred to as "the Second Succession Agreement") are "the Second Succession Agreement" (hereinafter referred to as "the Succession Agreement") and "the Succession Agreement" in the first and second Succession Agreements.

“으로 고쳐 씁니다. 제1심판결문 제3면 표 제9항의 ”원고“를 ”피고“로 고칩니다. 제1심판결문 제3면 표 아래 제1행의 “이 법원에 현저한 사실"을 삭제합니다.

The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion added the judgment to the Plaintiff agreed to succeed to C’s obligations while entering into the instant succession agreement and the letter of performance of the agreement with C, and the Plaintiff’s claim No. 19 and No. 33-4 stated the Plaintiff’s claim against C in the list of obligations A and No. 33-4.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer of each real estate of this case primarily on the ground of the succession agreement of this case to the plaintiff, or to pay the construction cost of KRW 750,000,000 in preliminary case and the delay damages therefor.

Judgment

1. On February 24, 200, the Plaintiff entered into the instant subcontract with C on February 24, 200, and C entered into the instant accord and satisfaction agreement on November 24, 200 for the payment of the construction cost under the instant subcontract, and the second succession agreement between the Defendant and F succeeds to C’s claims and obligations.

The facts described above are as mentioned above.

2. However, the above evidence, Gap evidence 33-3-4, and the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office.