1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) C are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

The court's explanation of this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for a change in part of the judgment of the court of first instance as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

"Article 2-2" in the judgment of the court of first instance.

A. The part of the argument against the defendant C (from Nos. 4, 19 to 5) is modified as follows:

【A. Defendant C’s assertion against Defendant C; Plaintiff A paid KRW 710,00,000,000 as the purchase price according to the instant sales contract; and Plaintiff C purchased the instant land from Defendant C to construct taxi facilities on the instant land, as seen below. As the instant sales contract was rescinded or cancelled, Defendant C, as its restitution, must pay interest or delay damages from the date of the last payment of each said money to the date of full payment. (1) The Plaintiffs asserted to cancel the instant contract, to the date of full payment, purchased the instant land from Defendant C to construct taxi facilities on the instant land.

However, since the instant land constitutes a development restriction zone and there exists a defect in which it is impossible to construct a taxi garage on the ground under the relevant laws, such as the Building Act, and thus, the Plaintiffs are released from the instant sales contract in accordance with Articles 580(1) and 575(1) of the Civil Act.

2. At the time of conclusion of the instant sales contract, Plaintiff A knew Defendant C that the instant land was purchased in order to construct a taxi train facility on the ground of the instant land.

However, the instant land was considered as a development restriction zone and was not able to construct a taxi train facility on the ground.

However, although Defendant C knew of these circumstances at the time of entering into the instant sales contract, it was false to the Plaintiffs that they could construct taxi garage facilities on the ground of the instant land, and thereby actively belonged to or did so.