1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall be the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant, 1.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows: "If the plaintiff is not recognized to have spent the civil engineering costs as above, the plaintiff shall pay the defendant's agent the civil engineering costs of this case with KRW 15 million, and since the plaintiff agreed to pay the plaintiff the civil engineering costs of this case with KRW 15 million, the defendant shall be obligated to pay the plaintiff the civil engineering costs of this case with KRW 15 million and the damages for delay." In addition, except for the case Nos. 7 and 2, it is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part of the road site used as a result of its determination as to the cause of the claim, as seen earlier, can be acknowledged that the Defendant, at the time of the instant contract, provided that the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 60,00 to the Plaintiff as the charge of the road site. In addition, in full view of the following: (a) the instant road site constitutes a road site under the instant contract; (b) the fact that the instant road site falls under the road site in question; and (c) the purchasers of eight parcels who are to use the instant road site as the passage through the road share the share of the road site in equal shares, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the share of KRW 4,860,00 (=(648 ± 648 ± 648 ± 60,00) to the Plaintiff; (b) the Defendant’s simultaneous defense against the simultaneous performance of the instant road site cannot be subject to the Plaintiff’s claim for ownership transfer registration before complying with the Plaintiff’s claim for ownership transfer registration procedure.

On the other hand, the plaintiff is paid the share of the road site by the defendant in full view of the purport of the whole argument in the statement of No. 2 of this case, or there is no dispute between the parties.