1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant C and the defendant B's appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne respectively by each party.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. The judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance on the assertion that both the plaintiff and the defendant B stressed or added in the court of first instance is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) below. Thus,

Part 3, the letter of agreement of the content in Part 13 shall be in accordance with the letter of agreement of the title "a bill of commitment containing the content".

In the 3-face 20-meter, the term "2,074m2" shall be applied to "one thousand m2,074m2".

Even if only the evidence submitted in the first instance court of the summary of the plaintiff's argument against the defendant C, it can be recognized that the defendant C, by deceiving the plaintiff and by deceiving the plaintiff as a sale price of KRW 180,000,000, the plaintiff's husband's application for witness against the court of first instance, dismissing the plaintiff's claim against the defendant C on the ground that there is a lack of evidence in the judgment of the court of first instance,

In addition, the judgment of the first instance, which did not recognize the civil liability of the defendant C as a tort by reason of the fact that the defendant C did not comply with the request of the police for attendance, and thus did not constitute a tort under the civil law from a different point of view from criminal liability.

In addition, the first instance court's dismissal of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant C without examining the reason why the defendant C did not commence the apartment construction even after receiving the apartment sale price in advance, is erroneous in the incomplete hearing.

Therefore, Defendant C’s liability for damages arising from tort should be recognized.

Defendant B’s summary of the assertion by the Plaintiff did not have obtained a total of KRW 130,00,000 from the Plaintiff.

The above 130,000,000 won is L, which the Plaintiff operates through Defendant B.