1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties or may be found as a whole in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3, 2, and 3, and the whole purport of the pleadings. A.

On September 18, 2009, the Plaintiff concluded a contract to sell land owned by Gwangju City B, C, and D to the Defendants (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. The sales price was KRW 1.130 million, but the down payment was paid KRW 130 million on the contractual date, and the intermediate payment was KRW 632,410,000, and the Defendants agreed to pay KRW 632,410,00 to the Plaintiff for the transfer of ownership of the Yongsan-gu E Apartment 1202, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Busan Metropolitan City in lieu of the Defendants’ transfer of ownership to the Plaintiff, and the remainder KRW 367,590,000 was to be paid on March 31, 2010.

(hereinafter) The above apartment is called the “instant apartment,” and the part of the part payment agreement regarding the intermediate payment is referred to as the “instant intermediate payment agreement.”

With respect to the instant intermediate payment agreement, the Plaintiff and the Defendants stated in the special terms and conditions of the sales contract (Evidence A2) that “E apartment 46 square meters (sub-story) 109 Dong 1202 and this parcel of land is exchanged, and settle the difference.” However, the time limit is not separately specified.

Since then, the Plaintiff was paid the remainder of KRW 367,590,000 from the Defendants, but the ownership of the instant apartment in lieu of the intermediate payment was not transferred, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the above lands in the name of the Defendant Dai Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Sapap Development Co., Ltd.”) on July 23, 2010 without being transferred.

2. The parties' assertion;

A. The Plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 632,410,00 for the intermediate payment originally determined as the implementation of the instant sales contract.

Plaintiff

The arguments that are the basis of the claim are as follows.

① The Plaintiff’s claim based on the instant intermediate payment agreement is a monetary claim with the original amount specified. However, the agreement was made so that it can be paid as a substitute, and the transfer of the instant apartment is practically impossible.