The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that the previous suit and the instant lawsuit do not have res judicata effect on the previous suit, for reasons as stated in its reasoning.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

There is no error by misapprehending the legal principles as to res judicata.

2. On the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s obligation under the agreement to join the association of this case was impossible to perform, and it cannot be deemed that it was caused by the obstruction of the D Housing Association and the two industry corporations, or the cause attributable to the Plaintiffs, and that the Plaintiffs’ right to rescission cannot be deemed as contrary

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

3. On the ground of appeal No. 3, based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the Plaintiffs may rescind the agreement to join the association of this case against the Defendant on the ground that the agreement to join the association of this case was concluded between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant by performing the obligation that the Defendant owes to the Plaintiffs pursuant to the instant supply commitment, and that the Defendant’s obligation to supply the apartment under the instant partnership accession agreement was impossible due to a cause attributable to

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

There is no error by misapprehending the legal principles on unions.

4. As to the ground of appeal No. 4, the lower court accepted the claim for restitution due to the cancellation of the agreement to join the association of this case among the selective claims asserted by the Plaintiff-Successor, and on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the Plaintiffs’ commitment to supply this case and the instant claim.