1.(a)

Upon the plaintiff's preliminary claim against the defendants added at the trial court, the plaintiff, and the defendant B 80,000.

1. The court of first instance dismissed all the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, and added the conjunctive claim against the Defendants in the judgment prior to remand.

The first instance court rejected all the conjunctive claims added by the Plaintiff’s appeal and the first instance court prior to the remand, and the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment prior to the remand.

The Supreme Court reversed the part concerning the conjunctive claim in the judgment before remand and remanded this part of the case, and dismissed the appeal as to the primary claim.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s primary claim against the Defendants is excluded from the scope of the trial after the remand.

2. Basic facts

A. On November 16, 2010, the Plaintiff and Defendant B entered into a real estate sales contract and paid down payment between the Plaintiff and Defendant B (hereinafter “instant land”) and the land located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F from Defendant B (hereinafter “instant land”).

(2) The sales price for the above-mentioned and its ground buildings shall be KRW 878,00,000; the down payment of KRW 80,000,000 shall be paid at the time of a contract; and the remainder of KRW 798,00,000 shall be paid within four months after entering into a sales contract with G and two other parties and Defendant C (hereinafter “instant first contract”).

(2) According to Article 2(3) of the instant contract, Defendant B agreed to deliver a written consent for land use necessary for the authorization and permission of the building upon the Plaintiff’s request after concluding the instant first contract.

In addition, in the column for the special agreement of the first contract of this case, the contract of this case is null and void if the contract with the plaintiff and two other parties, the owner of the neighboring lot, and the defendant C, is not sexually formed, and the contract of this case is the seller, and the defendant B, the buyer, the buyer, shall return the full contract deposit to the plaintiff.

Accordingly, if each of the above contracts is not concluded until August 30, 2011, the contract of this case is null and void.