1. The plaintiffs' incidental appeal and the defendant's appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne respectively by each party.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except in cases where the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is rewritten or added as stated in the following 2. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2.In addition, at the bottom of the sixthth sentence of the first instance, the following shall be added to the part which re-written or added judgment of the first instance:

On June 1, 201, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff B renounced the claim of this case against the defendant on June 1, 2011.

According to the evidence No. 15, it is recognized that Plaintiff B’s agent, on June 1, 201, agreed with the Defendant that the Plaintiff’s agent did not make any civil claim for the instant two land sales contract in the future on the condition that he/she completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the portion of P 46 square meters of land in the name of Plaintiff B.

There is no evidence to prove that the above conditions have been fulfilled.

Rather, according to the evidence No. 11, P land is recognized as having completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

The first 7th sentence to 4th sentence of the first instance court shall be followed as follows:

It is not allowed for a person who intentionally committed a tort by taking advantage of the victim’s care to claim a reduction of his/her liability on the ground of the victim’s negligence. This is because, in cases where such intentional tort constitutes a zero-use act, if recognizing the limitation of liability such as offsetting negligence, the perpetrator ultimately possess profits from the tort and bring about a result contrary to the principles of fairness or good faith. Thus, even in cases of intentional tort, if the above result does not result, it is possible to limit liability based on the principle of comparative negligence or the principle of fairness.

(Supreme Court Decision 2006Da16758 Decided October 25, 2007). Each of the above evidence is evidence.