1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant added the following judgments as to the part asserted as the ground for appeal by the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In addition, the Defendant’s assertion of false agreement between the Plaintiff of this case and the Defendant as of August 7, 2007 under the name of the Defendant as of August 7, 2007 (Evidence A No. 1). The specific content is that “The Defendant shall supply the Plaintiff with the completion of civil engineering works and the authorization and permission related thereto of approximately 200 million of Pyeongtaek-si and 11, and supply the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the payment of KRW 1.6 billion (=the remainder of the down payment of KRW 320 million and the down payment of KRW 1.28 billion) with the purchase price and the construction cost, but the land transaction agreement is null and void, and the down payment is fully refunded to the Plaintiff by the Defendant.”

Although the defendant was indicated as a contracting party, the defendant was merely a party in form, and the actual party who bears the duty of development and authorization of the land of this case was D, and there was mutual understanding between F and D between the plaintiff's agent and F.

Therefore, since the contract of this case was concluded between the plaintiff and D without the intention of the defendant to become a party, it is invalid as a false declaration of conspiracy with the defendant.

Even if the party to the contract of this case becomes final and conclusive as the defendant of the contract of this case, the defendant did not confer the power of representation on D as to the contract of this case, and D cannot be deemed to have concluded the contract as the substitute will, and the plaintiff shall not allow D to sit in company with the defendant in the same office during the process

The instant contract was concluded in the name of the Defendant between the Plaintiff and D without going through the fact of granting the power of representation, although it was possible to verify the fact of granting the power of representation.