1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The plaintiff's ancillary claim added by this court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which the court shall state as to the instant case, is that “the number of harm” in the 8th sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance can be interpreted as “the number of harm”. The reasoning of the judgment, which the court shall state as to the instant case, is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court adds the judgment as to the conjunctive claim against Defendant Lodo Entertainment, Inc. added by the Plaintiff to this court, as stated in the following 2. Thus, it shall be cited pursuant

2. Determination on the conjunctive claim against Defendant Domintain Entertainment Co., Ltd. (Defendant 1)

A. Article 684(1) of the Civil Act provides that "a mandatary shall deliver money, goods, and other things received through the management of delegated affairs and the negligence received therefrom to the mandator," and Article 684(2) of the same Act provides that "a mandatory shall transfer to the mandator the right acquired in his own name for the mandator." The defendant 1 company is delegated by the plaintiff with the land purchase business for the business of this case, the plaintiff and the defendant 1 company borrowed KRW 350 million from the construction of Ydongdong-dong with the land acquisition fund for the business of this case. The defendant 1 acquired the ownership of the real estate of this case as KRW 350 million from the above borrowed money, and completed the trust registration in the future of the defendant 2 company, therefore, in principle, the defendant 1 company is obligated to transfer to the plaintiff the right to benefit of this case acquired in his name for the plaintiff, who is a delegating for the land purchase business of this case.

B. However, as seen earlier, as seen in the part of the “determination on the claim to implement the procedure for transferring the right to benefit and the claim to notify the transfer thereof, it is impossible to transfer the right to benefit of this case without the consent of Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 under the instant trust agreement with Defendant 2. Defendant 2 transferred the right to benefit on the ground of trust remuneration, etc. to Defendant 1.