2. Part concerning the preliminary claim for a judgment of the first instance; and

A. Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is an executor who has sold the relevant officetels by performing the construction work of rebuilding the nine floors of the building on the ground (the title was changed to “E building”; hereinafter “instant building”) of Suwon-si and 19 parcels of land (the title was changed to “E building”).

B. The Plaintiffs and the joint Plaintiff H et al. purchased an officetel of the instant building. The Plaintiffs purchased each officetel indicated in the column of the number of units in the loss amount table in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “each officetel of the instant case”). The Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer of each of the instant officetels from December 5, 201 to March 2, 2012, respectively, and acquired the sectional ownership by completing the registration of ownership transfer under their respective names.

C. The entire building of the instant case was constructed by the Dominsan Co., Ltd. and obtained approval for use on August 11, 2003. The first occupancy date of each of the instant officetels was around November 11, 201.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 6 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the appraisal by the appraiser F of the first instance trial, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine whether the incidental appeal filed by the Plaintiff L, U, and V against the Defendants is lawful, ex officio, by examining whether the incidental appeal filed by the Plaintiff L, U, and V against the Defendants is legitimate.

A. According to the records of this case as to the legitimacy of the incidental appeal against the defendant company, the defendant company filed an appeal against all the plaintiffs and the joint plaintiffs of the first instance court, but failed to comply with the order of correction of address against the joint plaintiffs of the first instance court, S, and X, which became final and conclusive on October 28, 2014, on the ground that it is impossible to serve a duplicate of the petition of appeal on the grounds that the petition of appeal was rejected on October 28, 2014. The defendant company was not present at all on the date of pleading 1, 2, and 3th of the appellate court, and the plaintiffs' attorney was present at the date of pleading 1, 2, and 3th of the appellate court, but did not