The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(2) The court below's findings of fact and determination are justifiable even if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff to this court was presented by the court of first instance, and there are no errors as alleged in the grounds for appeal by the plaintiff). 2. The court below's findings of fact and determination are added or added.

A. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was accepted, shall be subject to the following parts: “after that, the defendant shall have an obligation to do so,” from No. 4 to No. 5. 2.

【After that, since the Defendant paid KRW 50 million around September 201, the remainder of KRW 400 million, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 400 million to the Plaintiff (However, the Plaintiff did not expand the purport of the claim to seek the payment of KRW 400 million from the existing KRW 250 million to the Plaintiff.

) On the 5th page of the first instance judgment, the Defendant, “Defendant,” in the 10th instance judgment, was brought to “Plaintiff”.

On the 8th page of the first instance judgment, the following shall be added.

【The Plaintiff asserted that, while entering into a sales contract for the instant real estate from the original complaint to the end of December 2003, the Plaintiff signed and sealed the sales contract in blank, the Plaintiff asserted that the sales contract (Evidence B No. 1) was entered into for the purpose of obtaining a loan on October 30, 2001. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not enter into a sales contract for the instant real estate; however, the Plaintiff’s conclusion that the sales contract was not entered into for the purpose of obtaining a loan on October 30, 2001, is considerably exceptional even if considering the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

B. The Plaintiff’s additional judgment 1 is the same.