손해배상(기)등
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part reversed by the judgment of remand is modified as follows.
The defendant is the plaintiff A and B.
1. In the first instance trial, when each of the lands listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "land 1 or 2 of this case" is individually added, the plaintiffs filed a claim for the cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership on each of the land of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the remaining part of the land of this case") in the name of the defendant among the land of this case on the ground that registration of preservation of ownership in the defendant's name, which was completed on the land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "each of the lands of this case" according to the sequence in the above list, is null and void, and the part of the land of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the remaining part of the land of this case") sold among the land of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the land of this case") is equivalent to the purchase price that the defendant received. The first instance court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims.
In response to the appeal by the plaintiffs, the first instance court prior to the remand revoked the part against the plaintiffs on the claim for cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership among the judgment of the first instance and accepted the plaintiffs' claim corresponding to that part, and dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal as to the monetary claim.
With respect to the above judgment of the court prior to remand, both the plaintiffs and the defendant appealed, while the Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's appeal on the part of the claim for cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership, and reversed only the part of claim for payment of money which was against the plaintiffs of the judgment prior to remand and remanded
Therefore, the part of the plaintiffs' claim for cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership becomes final and conclusive by the above Supreme Court decision, and thereafter the subject of adjudication is limited to the claim for monetary payment.
2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420
(The method of admitting a number of documentary evidence and the phrase citing the end of the contract). 3. Determination
A. The plaintiffs.