1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, 82,650,700 won against the defendant A, 71,939,000 won against the plaintiff B, and 63,939.

1. Under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to this part of the basic facts, the corresponding part of the grounds for the judgment of the first instance (from 3, 10 up to 5, 9 pages) shall be quoted.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. Each of the instant stores cannot be the object of sectional ownership because of its structural stability and independence in use, each of the instant sales contracts is aimed at acquiring sectional ownership of each of the instant stores. Therefore, each of the instant sales contracts is null and void because the purpose of legal acts is original impossibility. Therefore, each of the sales prices received by the Defendant from the Plaintiffs is unjust as it does not have any legal ground, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return each of the above sales prices to the Plaintiffs.

B. At the time of entering into each of the instant sales contracts, the Defendant deceivings the Plaintiffs by explaining as if they were each of the instant stores, the location of which is higher than each of the instant stores.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs were to cancel each of the instant sales contracts by delivering a copy of the instant complaint pursuant to Article 110 of the Civil Act on the grounds of the above fraud by the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the sales price received from the Plaintiffs as unjust enrichment return.

C. Each of the instant stores did not have a separate mark under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter “Aggregate Buildings Act”) and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act as of December 10, 2015, which was not only at the time of concluding each of the instant sales contracts, but also at the time of concluding each of the instant sales contracts. Since each of the instant sales contracts aimed at acquiring the sectional ownership of each of the instant stores was impossible to achieve its purpose, the Plaintiffs cancelled each of the instant sales contracts as a preparatory document dated December 10, 2015 as of December 10, 2015.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return each of the above sales price to the plaintiffs following the cancellation.

3. Determination

(a) original features;