1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the argument that the plaintiff emphasizes or re-re-re-convened and added, the reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, it is citing this as it is

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. (i) argument that the Plaintiff is not liable for nonperformance of the Defendant’s obligation to transfer ownership to the Plaintiff; even if the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 40 million and the debt repayment of provisional seizure of KRW 32 million pursuant to the first sales contract of this case, the Defendant failed to repay the debt of provisional seizure; even if the construction was conducted and the construction was conducted, the report on the change in the name of the person who was granted permission that was first performed by the Defendant was made during the first period; and furthermore, after the conclusion of the second sales contract of this case, the Plaintiff paid the amount equivalent to KRW 90 million as interest out of the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security, but there were many existing overdue interests, thereby additionally repaying the secured debt of this case.

However, it was difficult to suspend the auction procedure.

Therefore, the Plaintiff did not repay the secured debt of the instant collateral security right.

Even if so, it cannot be said that the plaintiff is responsible for the impossibility of the defendant's obligation to transfer ownership.

The reason why the Defendant’s obligation to transfer the ownership of the real estate stated in the attached list Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 of the instant real estate, among the instant real estate, may not be fulfilled, is that the said real estate was sold to a third party by exercising the right to collateral on the wind, which is set up on the instant real estate, as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, cited by the judgment of the court of first instance.

However, the evidence adopted in the judgment of the court of first instance, which was accepted by this judgment, can be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of pleadings.