1. The first instance judgment, including the claims expanded and reduced in this Court, shall be amended as follows:

The defendant.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part resulting from dismissal, addition, or deletion as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with

2. Article 1-6(f) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (the third 15th th th 15th th 201) provides for the following reasons: (a) the first sentence (the third th th 15th th 2016th th 14 October 2016) (in the case of a real estate sales contract (the certificate No. 6), the date on which the contract is concluded is written as June 10, 2016, but the date on which the actual contract is concluded is October 14, 2016).”

A person who is without merit in the judgment of the first instance.

The first reduction (the fifth 6th) of this paragraph shall be applied to "the defendant's representative" as "H".

The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is 2-B.

In the last sentence of paragraph (the fifth below), "360,000,000 won that the plaintiff seeks as part of the amount equivalent to the market price" shall be referred to as "630,545,068 won equivalent to the market price".

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is written.

Paragraph (5) (from the fifth to the last reduction) shall be deleted.

A. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is 3-A.

Under this subsection, parts from the 11th to the last reduction (from the 6th to the 7th 5th 6th below) shall be made as follows:

Around June 27, 2017, the defendant, on the ground that the plaintiff was omitted from the construction of a farm house, and the defendant was not obligated to newly build a farm house against the plaintiff. After that, the plaintiff requested funding as the new construction of a farm house as D. Accordingly, the defendant later paid KRW 35,859,100 in total to the plaintiff on July 5, 2017, on the ground that the defendant will settle the balance of the purchase price and the agreed amount and the agreed amount, and paid KRW 35,859,100 in total with the construction cost of a farm house. Accordingly, the defendant paid KRW 95,859,100 in total to the plaintiff on October 17, 2017, while paying KRW 35,859,100 in total with the construction cost of the farm house.