1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "the former spouse of the plaintiff)" in Part 2, Part 16 (the former spouse of the plaintiff) of the first instance court's decision in Part 2, Part 16 (the former spouse of the plaintiff) shall be "(the former spouse of the defendant B)"; "the latter part of the last behavior" shall be deleted; "the latter part of the same behavior" shall be added to "the price"; and "the following decision shall be added to the third part of the first instance court's decision in Part 9; therefore, it shall be accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In addition, the part of the additional determination also asserts that even if the Plaintiff received the written rejection of the instant performance from Defendant B and did not raise any objection for a long time, the Plaintiff and the Defendant B concluded a novation agreement under which the Plaintiff would allow the Plaintiff to acquire the ownership of Defendant B as it is and receive KRW 30 million. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that even if it is possible to seek damages against the Defendant B on the grounds that the Plaintiff could not recover the ownership ownership of this case and recover the ownership of this case, the Plaintiff cannot seek cancellation of the registration of the ownership transfer of this case against the Defendant C, etc.

The novation stipulated in Article 500 of the Civil Code refers to a contract under which the main part of the existing obligation is changed to extinguish the existing obligation and to establish a new obligation that is not identical to this. The letter of performance of this case is likely to interfere with Defendant B, and there is no signature and seal of the plaintiff, and otherwise, the plaintiff agreed to the contents of the letter of performance of this case.

Inasmuch as there is no evidence to prove the fact that Defendant C et al. did not raise any objection while allowing the content thereof, the above assertion by Defendant C et al. cannot be accepted.

3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendants' appeal is without merit.