1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is with merit of the judgment of the court of first instance.

1.(b)

Inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of the following parts between a port and a [based ground for recognition], it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence

A person shall be appointed.

C. As to 501, the registration of establishment of a chonsegwon was completed on March 9, 2005, the maximum debt amount of KRW 335,00,000,000, the debtor, the debtor, the debtor, and the Eup agricultural cooperative in Dong-dong, Dong-dong, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, the lease deposit amount of KRW 75,00,000,000 on August 3, 2005, from August 2, 2005 to September 30, 2010, the term of the lease was 502, and the registration of establishment of a right to collateral security was completed on March 9, 2005, and the debtor, the debtor, the plaintiff, and the Eup agricultural cooperative in Dong-dong, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, the term of KRW 75,500,000,000, the lease right was established on August 37, 2005, the debtor of the right to collateral security, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 30030.5.

A person shall be appointed.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff entered into the contract and sales promise of this case for the purpose of selling the real estate of this case to the defendant. At the time, the defendant takes over the plaintiff's obligation to refund the lease deposit of 150 million won against the lessee of the real estate of this case as well as the obligation to lend the real estate of 592 million won which was provided as security, and the remaining remainder amount of 569 million won to the plaintiff on August 25, 2006. However, the plaintiff extended the payment due date upon the defendant's request and completed the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer of the real estate of this case to the defendant on August 28, 2006. However, the defendant, despite the plaintiff's renewed peremptory notice, intended to conclude the sales promise until seven years have passed since the contract of this case.