1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case as described in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. On the second page of the judgment of the first instance, the term “L” in the 6th sentence below shall be read as “M”, the term “in the second page” in the 4th sentence shall be read as “in the case of the Plaintiff and D’s Defendants,” and the term “in the case of the Plaintiff and D’s notification of the assignment of claims” in the 1 to 3th page below.

2) On November 9, 2015, D sent to the Defendants a notice of assignment of claims to the effect that the Defendants transferred the unpaid claim KRW 700 million under the instant sales contract to the Plaintiff by content-certified mail, and around that time, the said notice reached the Defendants.

A person shall be appointed.

B. On the third side of the judgment of the court of first instance, the third side of the judgment 15 to 18 shall be followed as follows.

【A) If D did not return KRW 600 million, the Defendants filed a lawsuit against D seeking restitution of unjust enrichment with the Jeonju District Court 2017Kahap1669, and received a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on May 31, 2018 from the above court for the following reasons.

A person shall be appointed.

C. Once the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered, the following parts shall be added between the two and three.

(B) Accordingly, D’s appeal was lodged by the Gwangju High Court (former District Court) No. 2018Na10895, but the appellate court also believed that the Defendants would be able to construct an apartment building with a height of 43 meters and at least 500 households in the single unit of the instant real estate constitutes a mistake in motive, and such motive was indicated as the content of the contract.

If the Defendants knew that it was impossible to construct apartment buildings of the same scale, it seems that the instant sales contract was not concluded.

In light of the terms and conditions of the instant sales contract, etc., the Defendants’ mistake was actively induced D.