1. Defendant C’s KRW 143,254,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 15% per annum from January 23, 2019 to May 31, 2019.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The grounds for the attachment of the claim are as stated in Defendant C in the corresponding part of the claim.

B. Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act of the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu4045, Jul. 25, 1989) (the Defendant C only submitted a formal reply demanding the rejection of the Plaintiff’s claim despite being served with a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and did not give any reply to the facts alleged by the Plaintiff as the cause of the claim, and did not appear on the date for pleading. Therefore, all of the Plaintiff’s assertion is deemed to have been led (see,

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant B in collusion with the defendant C, and the defendant D and E block F apartment G (hereinafter "the apartment of this case") in Busan Gangseo-gu and E block.

(2) On October 5, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff purchased the instant apartment in the name of Defendant B, without being entitled to purchase the apartment without being entitled to purchase it, and thereafter, the sales contract for the right to purchase the instant apartment from Defendant B (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Plaintiff on October 5, 2017, as if the Plaintiff were lawful buyers, even if they were not a legitimate buyer of the instant apartment.

AB concluded the agreement.

However, Defendant B could not transfer the right to sell the apartment of this case to the Plaintiff by cancelling the apartment sale contract of this case between Defendant B and H Co., Ltd.

As above, since the sales contract of this case was cancelled due to the mistake of Defendant B and Defendant C, and the sales contract of this case was impossible to be performed, the Plaintiff cancelled the sales contract of this case, and at the same time, the sales contract of this case is revoked because it is an expression of intent by fraud.

Furthermore, the above acts by Defendant B and Defendant C constitute joint tort.

Such cancellation or cancellation of the instant sales contract.