1. All appeals by the Defendant (Appointeds), Appointeds D and Defendant are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of this case is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment of the court of first instance under paragraph (2) below. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence

2. Determination on addition

A. First, the Defendants asserted that the instant contract cannot be cancelled on the ground that the Plaintiff is a party to the instant contract, on the premise that the Plaintiff is not a party to the instant contract, and that the Plaintiff cannot claim the return of the down payment already paid to the Defendants due to the fulfillment of the obligation to restore the original state following the rescission of the instant contract. Thus, if the objective meaning of the text is clear in the case of the formation of a certain contract between the parties to the instant contract in writing as a disposal document, barring any special circumstance, the existence and content of the declaration of intent should be recognized. In particular, if the objective meaning of the text is interpreted differently from the objective meaning of the text, thereby seriously affecting the legal relations between the parties, the content of the text should be interpreted more strictly (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da46531, Nov. 13, 2008). According to the evidence evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff’s seal is affixed to the instant contract, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is not a party to the instant contract.

B. The Defendants, next, set the down payment out of the purchase price under the instant contract between the joint buyers, including the Plaintiff, and the Defendants, as penalty in preparation for the case where the joint buyers, including the Plaintiff, fail to perform the obligation under the instant contract.