1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After filing an appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. The plaintiff's assertion emphasized or newly added in the trial is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for those determined in paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the first instance trial, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is written in the terms of the "ObC" and "ObC" as "ObC" and "ObC", shall be considered as "the supplementary intervenor of the plaintiff."

The Plaintiff appealed against Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial, but withdrawn the lawsuit against the above Defendant in the first instance trial. As such, the part indicated as “Defendant C” in the first instance judgment is all considered as “C”.

2. The addition;

A. As to the claim for return of unjust enrichment due to nonperformance without any cause attributable to both the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s assertion is merely a fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion of the Plaintiff’s and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor did not pay any balance inevitably after the Plaintiff’s failure to pay part of the purchase price, and does not constitute a cause attributable to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor. Therefore, each of the instant sales contract, which is an bilateral contract, is a contract concluded between the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and thus, the term “each of the instant sales contract” as mentioned above refers to only the sales

(2) In light of the factual basis and the purport of the evidence evidence No. 17 and the argument, prior to the determination of the lower judgment, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s assertion that the Plaintiff had already received the claim for return of unjust enrichment, and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s assertion that the claim for return of unjust enrichment had already been received from the Plaintiff’s Intervenor should be returned. In so doing, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s assertion was set out in May through July 7, 2010.