1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined as follows: (a) the instant lawsuit cannot be deemed to be included in the scope of the non-assignment agreement stipulated in each sales contract concluded between the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the remaining designated parties (hereinafter in this case referred to as “Plaintiffs”) and the Defendant; or (b) it cannot be deemed to violate the non-assignment agreement stipulated in each sales contract concluded between the Defendant and the Defendant.

The court below rejected the defendant's main defense of safety.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles, the above judgment below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of a non-reguination clause, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that the obligation of the Plaintiffs to pay the remainder of the purchase price and the obligation of the Defendant to transfer ownership under each contract for sale in a simultaneous performance relationship, and that the Plaintiffs did not have any special agreement to pay the remainder of the purchase price

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the interpretation of disposal documents and simultaneous performance in determining simultaneous performance relations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. On the ground of appeal No. 3, based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that there was no delay liability for the portion equivalent to the construction cost out of the remainder of the sales price until the preparatory documents as of October 13, 2015 were served on the Plaintiffs.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on delay and excessive peremptory notice in determining the point at which the obligation to pay the remainder of the construction cost was established, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. Regarding ground of appeal No. 4

A. The court below held that the date of closing argument.