1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant is with the land size of 855 square meters in the case of the plaintiffs.

1. The Plaintiffs, in the course of the instant case, sell each of the instant lands owned by each of the Plaintiffs individually to the Defendant, and there is any balance that has yet to be paid after the due date for partial payment of the remainder even after the due date for the remainder payment, and thus, seek for the payment of the unpaid balance, damages for delay, and damages for delay incurred during the delayed period.

As to this, the defendant argued that the plaintiffs agreed to remove obstacles, etc. to the defendant before paying the purchase and sale balance of the defendant at the time of the contract of this case, but did not perform the obligation, and that part of the balance did not be paid.

Under each of the instant sales contracts, the first instance court accepted part of the Plaintiffs’ claim on the premise that the obligation to deliver and transfer ownership of each of the instant lands and the obligation of the Defendant to pay the remainder of each of the instant lands simultaneously is in a simultaneous performance relationship. The portion of the Plaintiffs’ claim for damages for delay on the remainder of the payment that the Plaintiffs sought is dismissed, and the portion of the claim for the remainder of the payment is limited to the land for which the obligation to remove is recognized, such as obstacles, etc.

In regard to the judgment of the first instance, the Defendant appealed to the effect that, insofar as the Defendant did not perform its obligation to remove obstacles, etc., which the Plaintiffs bear, the Defendant cannot pay the remainder in full. The Plaintiffs filed an incidental appeal to the purport that the Defendant should immediately pay the remainder in full, since each Plaintiff is a separate sales contract and the Defendant’s obligation to pay the remainder and the obligation to remove obstacles, etc. are not in the simultaneous performance relationship.

Therefore, the part of the plaintiffs' claim for damages for delay of the balance (the balance of the payment) received partially from the defendant among the plaintiffs' claims in this case.