1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning for this case by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following addition among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The following shall be added to Section 1. (c) of the first instance judgment:

D. B: (a) died on October 8, 2016, which was after the closing of the first instance trial; and (b) his heir I, children H and J as his heir.

(b) reasons for the judgment of the first instance court 2. D. The following shall be added:

E. The Defendants’ additional assertion 1) The Defendants intend to withdraw from the Plaintiff’s partnership and to be a cash liquidation, but the Defendants must cancel the application for parcelling-out and receive cash settlement after the lapse of the period for parcelling-out contract stipulated by the Plaintiff. The commencement and end of the period for parcelling-out contract is entirely entitled to decide on the Plaintiff.

Where the Plaintiff seeks the delivery of real estate without going through the procedures for concluding the contract for sale, the Defendants shall deliver the real estate without any consideration, and even if the Defendants are changed to a cash clearing, the interest shall be returned to the moving expenses, and if the real estate is being removed after the delivery of the real estate, the opportunity to dispute the cash settlement amount will be lost.

Therefore, since the defendants' duty to deliver real estate and the plaintiff's duty to liquidate cash have concurrent performance relationship, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's request unless the plaintiff performs the procedure for cash settlement.

2) As seen earlier, the Defendants’ assertion alone cannot be deemed to have acquired the status of a cash clearing agent. Moreover, the circumstance that the Defendants are likely to acquire the status of a cash clearing agent does not constitute a ground for refusing the instant real estate delivery. The Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and acceptable.