1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the plaintiff's decision as to the conjunctive claim added in the trial under Paragraph 2 below. Thus, the court's explanation of this case is acceptable as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion was cancelled due to the Defendant’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to refund the purchase price of KRW 20 million, which was already paid due to the rescission, to the Plaintiff and pay KRW 5 million, equivalent to 10% of the total purchase price, due to damages incurred by nonperformance.

1) When the land of this case was knocked to I in the auction procedure, the Defendant appears to have agreed to allow I to pay KRW 10 million to I the successful bid price for the land of this case, instead of paying KRW 10,000,000,000 to I as to the land of this case, and simultaneously receive KRW 25,000,000 from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, at the same time, I recognized the validity of the contract of this case between the original Defendant. The Defendant entered into the contract of this case, and notified the Plaintiff of the so-called multi-purpose contract on the land of this case that I and the Plaintiff as a party to the contract of this case (attached to No. 4 No. 2, No. 4, the balance of the contract of this case, and undergo the registration of ownership transfer from I to the Plaintiff.

In regard to this, the Plaintiff rejected the Defendant’s proposal demanding participation in the above evasion of the law as to the instant land, and notified the Defendant of the fact that the instant sales contract was rescinded due to the Defendant’s unilateral default, on the premise that the said contract was rescinded.