The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 4, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the sales contract of this case was cancelled due to the Defendant’s reasons attributable to the lack of evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant completed the instant development project and completed the registration of ownership transfer as a project implementer, and that the instant development project included a golf course site development project and should complete the relevant golf course development project, and that the instant development project can only obtain the authorization of the completion of the instant development project.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of disposition documents, the principle of good faith, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ claim for cancellation of the contract on the grounds that the Plaintiffs were unable to implement the registration procedure on the ground that they were able to construct a golf course as the co-project implementer of the golf course development project, which is the three-stage project of the instant development project, and the Defendant could implement the registration procedure on the ownership transfer

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s determination that did not accept the Plaintiffs’ assertion is justifiable in its conclusion. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the Industrial Sites and Development Act and the Public Property and Commodity Management Act, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence