1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant C and the defendant B's appeal are all dismissed.

2. The plaintiff and the defendant B.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for the change of “this court” into “court of the first instance” as “court of the first instance.”

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The seller of the instant sales contract is Defendant C, and Defendant B is the guarantor or joint guarantor who agreed to assume responsibility for the change of the name in the future of the Plaintiff regarding the housing site subject to the right to purchase the instant housing site as the agent of Defendant C, or the party to the instant sales contract. Even if Defendant C did not have the right to conclude the instant sales contract on behalf of the Defendant C, Defendant C granted the basic authority by issuing a certificate of personal seal impression, etc. to Defendant B, and Defendant B concluded the instant sales contract beyond the scope of its basic authority, but the Plaintiff was deemed to have the authority to conclude the instant sales contract on behalf of the Defendant C, and therefore the instant sales contract is established as an apparent agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act, since there is any justifiable reason to believe that the Plaintiff had the authority to conclude the instant sales contract on behalf of the Defendant C.

3) In addition, the Korea Land and Housing Corporation’s revocation of the designation of a person to be supplied to Defendant C, thereby extinguishing Defendant C’s right to purchase the instant housing site. Accordingly, the Defendants became unable to perform their duty to ensure that the Defendants acquire ownership in the instant housing site subject to the instant right to purchase the housing site pursuant to the instant sales contract, and on that ground, the Plaintiff rescinded the instant sales contract by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint on the Plaintiff. 4) As such, the instant sales contract became null and void or cancelled, the Defendants were