1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendant (including the appointed parties) and the appointed parties are dismissed, respectively.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. On March 24, 2008, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased KRW 1.1 billion from Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) a forest of G 33729mm29m2, H forest and 14975m2, and 1256m2 before I (hereinafter “instant land”) in both weeks owned by the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) and the designated parties, and paid KRW 110 million as the down payment on the same day, and Defendant C guaranteed the performance of the above sales contract.

However, the Defendant Company concluded the above sales contract with the Plaintiff without being delegated the right to dispose of the land of this case from the owner of the land of this case and failed to present documentary evidence that there was the right to dispose of the land of this case to the third party.

Therefore, the above sales contract became impossible to be implemented due to the reasons attributable to the defendant company.

Therefore, the plaintiff is to cancel the above sales contract on this ground. The defendant C is a seller, and the defendant C is obligated to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff as a guarantor, and the remaining defendants and the designated parties are also owners of the land of this case, who ratified the above sales contract and delegated the rights related to the conclusion of the sales contract to the defendant company, so they should bear the responsibility

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances: (a) the instant land sales contract was written between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company; and (b) the Plaintiff was also aware that the Defendant Company did not own the instant land; and (c) the Plaintiff sent a notice to the Defendant Company and urged Defendant D, E, and the designated parties to separately perform the said sales contract while urged the Defendant Company to perform the said contract; and (d) Defendant D, E, and the designated parties to separately perform the said contract, it shall be deemed that the said contract is not the party to the said sales contract, and thus, Supreme Court Decision 200 Decided June 6, 2013.