1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim changed at the trial court, shall be modified as follows.

A. The Plaintiff:

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the part of the 7th to 9th 5th e.g., the 7th e., the e.g., concurrent performance relationship, and d. sub-decisions, as set forth in the following paragraph 2, are used, and the defendant emphasizes or added in the trial, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. Parts to be dried;

C. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment 1) is as follows: (a) the amount of the secured debt of the right to collateral security established on the instant real estate should be deducted from the purchase price; (b) the Defendants are obligated to pay the amount that remains after deducting the secured debt of the right to collateral security; and (c) at the same time, to take the procedure for registration of ownership transfer arising from the sale of the instant real estate and to deliver the said real estate to the Plaintiff; and (d) unless otherwise specifically agreed in a real estate sales contract, the buyer may refuse payment of the purchase price equivalent to the secured debt amount arising from the registration until the cancellation of the right to collateral security (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1029, Sept. 27, 198). In this case, the purchase price that the buyer may refuse payment is not equivalent to the amount of the secured debt or the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security, and in special circumstances, such as where the buyer knows the secured debt amount of the right to collateral security.

In this case, according to the statement No. 6 of this case, the order to submit financial transaction information to K of the first instance court, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the real estate of this case becomes K of the maximum debt amount of June 29, 2001, and the creditor K of this case.