1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the determination of paragraph (2) as to the allegations added or emphasized by the plaintiffs in this court. Therefore, this is cited pursuant to the main

2. Additional determination

A. Even if the designation of the land transaction permission zone was cancelled due to the lack of possibility of development or division due to the forest land belonging to the preserved mountainous district, the purpose of the transaction could not be achieved, and the Defendants deceiving the Plaintiffs to enter into a sales contract.

H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) is a typical planning real estate company, and the Defendants are the actual representative (Defendant C), representative director, and director or employee.

Defendant C is liable for damages under Article 401-2 of the Commercial Act; Article 401 of the Commercial Act; Article 750 of the Civil Act; Article 750 of the Civil Act; and Article 750 of the Civil Act.

In the case of the remaining Defendants other than Defendant G, even if they are not deceiving, they are responsible for the breach of the duty of loyalty and duty of care of directors, etc. under the Commercial Act as intentional or gross negligence.

B. 1) Article 401 of the Commercial Act provides that when a director neglects his/her duties by intention or gross negligence, he/she shall be jointly and severally liable for damages to a third party, and Article 401-2(1) of the same Act provides that a director shall be appointed as a director in the application of Article 401 for the purpose of Article 401, such as a person who instructs a director to conduct business by using his/her own influence over the company. The required “act of neglect of duties due to intention or gross negligence” requires an illegal circumstance as an act of breach of duty and duty of care, which is recognized as a corporate entity, and the mere failure to perform the company’s obligations due to an ordinary transaction does not constitute such act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da47316, Mar. 29, 2002; 25, Aug. 2