1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against Defendant C in the judgment is modified as follows.

Defendant C shall be liable to the Plaintiffs on March 307,913.

1. The reasoning for this part of the underlying facts is as follows, and this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial revision as follows. A. This is citing it in accordance with

The third 13-party 13-party 1 in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be "building" to "the second tier detached house and the first tier general warehouse".

B. The third 14 parallel of the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed to be “the same day”.

C. At the fourth lower end of the judgment of the first instance, the term “ January 29, 2014” was changed to “ January 20, 2014.”

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. At the time of the third agreement, the Defendants had already established a right to collateral security on the land No. 2 of this case at the time of the third agreement, and the third land of this case was also subject to voluntary auction. Therefore, there was no intent to establish a right to access the land No. 2 and 3 of this case to the Plaintiffs.

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired to establish a traffic area to the Plaintiffs, thereby deceiving the Plaintiffs to obtain the cost of constructing the instant building and the additional compensation in accordance with each of the instant agreements.

Even if Defendant D and E did not conspired with Defendant C, they are recognized as joint tort liability due to aiding and abetting at least.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiffs the total amount of KRW 324,300,000 for the construction of the instant building and KRW 414,300,000 for additional compensation and damages for delay.

B. As a matter of course, the Defendants’ obligation to set up a traffic easement pursuant to the instant third agreement was impossible due to the sale of the land No. 3, etc., and thus, the Plaintiffs are released from the third agreement by serving the Defendant’s claim and the application for change of cause on June 2, 2017.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally against the Plaintiffs.