1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) added by this court.

1. The reasons for this part of the basic facts are as follows: (a) the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (the main text of paragraph (1) of the judgment of the first instance (the last sentence of the second page) is cited.

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. As the Defendant, which caused the claim, contests the validity of the instant supply contract concluded on September 18, 2017 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the building stated in the purport of the claim, the Defendant sought confirmation that the Plaintiff had the ownership of ownership under the instant supply contract regarding the said building.

In addition, the agreement of this case concluded between E and the defendant et al. should be deemed to be a contract for a third party. Since the plaintiff expressed his/her intent of profit, it is also argued that there is no obligation to pay the plaintiff's sales price to the defendant based on the supply contract of this case for the plaintiff under the contract of this case, the sale price of this case discounted pursuant to the contract of this case between E and the defendant (247,00,000 won - the actual sale price of this case) and the additional share of the supply price under the contract of this case (493,863,000 won - the sale price of this case - the sale price of this case 413,00,000 won under the contract of this case - the sale price of this case was exempted from the obligation under the contract of this case, and therefore there is no obligation to pay the plaintiff to the defendant

B. 1) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation due to the Defendant’s counterclaim. 2) However, insofar as the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit was filed prior to the Defendant’s counterclaim and there was a benefit of confirmation in itself, it cannot be deemed that the benefit of confirmation is lost due to the Defendant’s counterclaim. The part of the claim for confirmation of the right to purchase the ownership was filed after the Defendant’s counterclaim, but the content of the claim cannot be deemed to have been considered to include more active contents in seeking a rejection of the counterclaim. Therefore, the benefit of confirmation is the interest of confirmation.