1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was residing in the project zone of the Cdistrict development project, but could have been supplied with the housing site from the Gyeonggi-do Si project, etc. if he is determined as a person eligible for supply of the

B. On October 6, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract between the Defendant and the seller, the buyer, and one other, and the sales price of KRW 160 million with respect to the right to sell the housing site to be supplied by the Plaintiff from the operator of the said business (hereinafter “instant right to sell”).

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). C.

After that, the Plaintiff was selected as a person eligible for the supply of the resettlement site, and purchased the instant land from the Gyeonggi-do Si Corporation on May 26, 2016.

around that time, with respect to the change of the name of the Plaintiff, the first purchaser of the Gyeonggi-do Si Corporation may change the name only once after the conclusion of the contract without limiting the price, and thereafter, it is possible to change the name only when it resells below the supply from the construction. In the event of change of the name, the transferor and the transferee visit the construction to take procedures such as an application for change

b. The title change was announced to the effect that it would be possible from July 1, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of this case's right or legal relation is likely to cause unstable legal status of the plaintiff by dispute over the plaintiff's right or legal relation, and in other words, he/she shall be a person who has asserted conflicting interests that conflict with the legal interests and interests of the plaintiff, and the defendant shall have the interest in confirmation against such defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da67399, Feb. 15, 2013). In the instant case where the plaintiff seeks confirmation of invalidity of the sales contract of this case against the defendant, the defendant asserted that the contract of this case's validity as a party to the sales contract of