1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds alleged by the Plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance are not different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claims, even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is examined together with the allegations by the Plaintiffs, even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is additionally submitted in the court of first instance, the judgment of the court of first instance dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claims.

Therefore, the reasoning for the statement in this case is as follows: (a) the court shall dismiss “this court” in Section 4 of the first instance judgment as “the first instance court”; and (b) add “(31) a clerical error in November 31, 2018” in the first instance judgment as “(30 November 30, 2018)”; (c) dismiss “2 months and 23 days” in Chapter 7 as “2 months and 21 days”; and (d) consider the assertion that the plaintiffs repeatedly stressed “2. Additional Decision” in the second instance judgment as the ground for the first instance judgment, except for the addition of “2. Additional Decision” in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, this shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(citing only parts corresponding to the plaintiff). 2. Additional determination

A. At the time of the plaintiffs' first temporary approval for the use of the apartment of this case, there are many defects, including fire-fighting systems, and the number of buyers including the plaintiffs were difficult to move into and reside in the apartment of this case.

However, as the defendant completed all of these defects, the defendant prepared a false report and obtained approval for the temporary use from the old U.S. market.

Therefore, with the approval for temporary use of the first time, the defendant provided the plaintiffs with a performance in a state that they can move into and reside in the apartment of this case.

The period of temporary approval should not be considered as the period during which the defendant provided performance.

In addition, even if the Defendant offered the first temporary use period, according to each of the instant sales contracts, the Defendant is the apartment of this case from August 2018 to November 30, 2018, which is within three months from the scheduled date of occupancy to August 30, 2018.