The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, decided that the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) agreed to pay the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) the store located on the second floor of the instant building, which is a sectioned building, in lieu of the payment of fees under the instant sales agency contract, but the transfer of ownership was impossible, and thus, the Defendants were liable to compensate the Plaintiff B for damages equivalent to the value of the said store’s land share, and rejected the Defendants’ assertion that the said fees were paid.

Furthermore, the lower court did not pay the value-added tax agreed to assume by the Plaintiffs when the Plaintiffs received payment in kind at their stores as above.

The Defendants’ assertion that Defendant E subrogated for the loan obligation amounting to KRW 80 million against Plaintiff B was dismissed for the reasons indicated in its reasoning.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by recognizing facts contrary to logical and empirical rules or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.