1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties or may be found in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 1. D's testimony

In around 2004, Defendant B owned the eligibility to become a partner of the association of land for livelihood countermeasures under the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Housing Site Development Project. On November 9, 2004, Defendant B decided to transfer the share of the land for livelihood countermeasures (hereinafter “instant purchase right”) that can be purchased by a partner in the future after receiving KRW 20 million from Nonparty F et al. and one other, and issued the purchase contract, but the name of the purchaser or the right holder was written in the name of Defendant B, but the name of the purchaser or the right holder was written in the name of the purchaser, the sale contract, the sale note, the transfer note, and the real estate sales contract.

B. Around December 2004, Defendant C sold the instant sales right of KRW 48 million held by F, and all of the sales documents prepared by Defendant B, delivered to the Plaintiff, and issued a receipt of KRW 48 million (Evidence A2-2) to the Plaintiff, Defendant C issued a receipt of KRW 48 million to the Plaintiff.

C. On April 29, 2011, the sales contract for the land for livelihood countermeasures in the E district was concluded on April 29, 201, Defendant B, as a livelihood countermeasure agent, was able to purchase the land for livelihood countermeasures in the future and exercise the right to sell the instant land, but did not join the association as a partner, and accordingly, deemed to waive the eligibility as a livelihood countermeasure agent.

2. The primary claim against the Defendants and the judgment thereof

A. The main point of the claim is that the Defendants, despite being aware of the fact that it is difficult for the Defendants to perform the duty to transfer the title of the instant sale right, sold to the Plaintiff and received the payment of KRW 48 million to the Plaintiff, thereby causing considerable damages to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendants’ act constitutes joint tort. Therefore, the Defendants constitute joint tort.