1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it is citing it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. The following shall be added to a part which is dismissed or added after the fourth 3th of the judgment of the court of first instance:

As the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the instant sales contract with a specific subject matter of sale after visiting the site several times, the instant sales contract argues that the subject matter of the instant sales contract is not an unspecified temporary sales contract, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the said assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the Plaintiff’s assertion is not acceptable). The fourth six parties of the first instance judgment of “The Plaintiff’s allegation is deemed as follows.”

There is no evidence to recognize, on the other hand, there is no evidence to prove the fact that the plaintiff was unable to file an application for a cadastral survey without the defendant's consent to the application for a cadastral survey, and the following is added to the fifth one of the judgment of the first instance, and the second two of the two.

4. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The summary of the assertion was that the Plaintiff transferred all rights, such as the right to claim ownership transfer under the instant sales contract, to E on June 3, 1998, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have the right to claim ownership transfer registration and compensatory damages pursuant to the instant sales contract as seen earlier.

B. Even if the plaintiff's main and conjunctive claim of this case are reasonable at the stage of the cause of the claim, according to the purport of Eul's evidence No. 11 and all pleadings, the plaintiff transferred all rights, such as the right to claim for ownership transfer registration, to E on June 3, 1998, and at that time, notified the defendant of the above transfer.