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

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for adding the following judgments to Chapter 6, Chapter 18, which is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it shall be cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiffs did not express their intent to refuse the performance of their obligations before the Defendant’s declaration of intent to cancel the sales contract, and even if they had the intent to refuse the performance of their obligations, each of the instant sales contracts is asserted to be valid since they had withdrawn their intent to refuse the performance of their obligations. Thus, as seen earlier, the Plaintiffs expressed their intent to refuse the performance of their obligations by demanding the Defendant to return the down payment and intermediate payment before October 21, 2014, before which the Defendant expressed his intent to cancel each of the instant sales contract. Accordingly, each of the instant sales contracts was cancelled on October 22, 2014, in which the Defendant’s declaration of intent to cancel the contract was delivered to the Plaintiffs, and the circumstances such as the fact that the Plaintiffs’ withdrawal of the intent to refuse the performance of their respective sales contracts was deemed to be the validity of each of the instant sales contracts after the cancellation of each of the instant sales contract, and therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.