1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons why this Court shall explain this part of the basic facts are as follows, and this part of the part of the "Ground for Recognition of Baut" No. 3 and No. 4 of the first instance judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment except as stated in the part. Thus, this part shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A person shall be appointed.

D. On February 22, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against F, etc. seeking delivery of the instant real estate and the instant building stated in paragraph (2) (hereinafter “instant building”) with the Busan District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Decision 2012Gahap890, against F, etc. on February 22, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking delivery of the instant real estate and the instant building (hereinafter “instant building”). The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking delivery of the instant real estate and the instant building, the first floor restaurant, the second floor bowling, the second floor bowling, the third floor Raba Plux, the fourth or sixth floor Raba, and the equipment and devices of the golf driving range (hereinafter “instant house, etc.”).

B. In the above case, the Plaintiff’s cause of claim: (a) Defendant C entered into a joint and several surety contract with the Plaintiff, which was erroneous without notifying the Plaintiff of the significant fact that the maturity comes due upon termination of October 23, 2009; (b) the said joint and several surety contract concluded by the Plaintiff is revoked or null and void in violation of the good faith principle; and (c) Defendant A intentionally calculated the minimum estimated sale price without appraising the golf practice course facilities, which is an important part of the subject matter of the instant public auction for the benefit of F, etc., the sales contract on the instant real estate is null and void against good morals and other social order; (c) Defendant A sold the instant real estate at an unreasonably low price in violation of the good faith manager’s duty of care as to the trust property; and (d) Defendant A did not enter into a sales contract at a lower price; and thus, the instant sales contract constitutes an error in the important part of the terms and conditions of the contract.