1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the instant case, is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 42

2. The following shall be added to the fourth part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is written or added:

E. Since the Defendant failed to prepare all documents necessary for the application for ownership transfer registration to the extent that it can be accepted and failed to provide legitimate performance to exercise the right of rescission, the instant sales contract cannot be rescinded on the ground that the Plaintiff’s balance remains unpaid, the Defendant shall write down the “witness” of the fourth 17th judgment of the first instance court as “the witness of the first instance trial.”

The fifth and 9th of the judgment of the first instance court stated that the "performance of the procedure for changing the name of the project operator of this case" was "a notification that the clan of this case transferred to the plaintiff the right to claim ownership transfer registration of the land owned by the same clan as the performance of the above clans".

No. 6.5 of the first instance judgment, the “litigation for the change of the name of the project operator” in the first instance judgment, shall be applied to the “litigation for the change of the project operator’s name” in the first instance judgment. The 6.15 of the first instance judgment “the project of this case” shall be applied to the “for the project of this case.”

Part VII through 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be followed as follows.

Around June 5, 2017, F applied for the adjudication of expropriation of the instant real estate to the local Land Tribunal of Gyeonggi-do, but the application was rejected on the ground that the official seal of the instant clan, the co-implementer of the instant project, was omitted.

The clan of this case, upon receiving a request from F to cooperate with F in the procedure for filing an application for adjudication on expropriation of the real estate of this case, brought an action against F on August 17, 2018 to seek confirmation of cancellation of the real estate sales contract, and the F is against the clan of this case.