1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

1. Basic facts are based on this part of this court's reasoning: ① after the last reduction of the judgment of the court of first instance, the main contents of the construction contract entered into by the plaintiff and A (hereinafter "the construction contract of this case") are as shown in the attached Table 3; ② the " approximately 44%" in the 7th fourth part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed as " approximately 49.5%"; ③ the "attached Forms 1 and 2" shall be changed as shown in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of "attached Forms 1 and 2" and the "attached Form 3" shall be cited as it is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited as it is

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) Unlike the agreement, the defendant failed to complete the construction of this case within 28 months from the date of commencement, and violated the obligation to complete the construction of this case by giving up the construction of this case after January 6, 2010. The plaintiffs caused damages for which the principal and interest of this case cannot be repaid from the proceeds from sale or sales of the facility of this case. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs. 2) The defendant's assertion is liable for violation of the obligation to complete the construction of this case's liability.

However, the phrase “the Defendant failed to complete the instant construction by the scheduled completion date” is attributable to the Defendant’s cause not attributable to the Defendant, such as design change.

In addition, according to the business agreement of this case, the lender bears the obligation of the defendant to pay the construction cost (hereinafter referred to as "presumpted price") up to 70% of the total amount of the construction cost according to the existing rate. The obligation of the Gwangju Bank, a representative bank, (hereinafter referred to as "agent bank"), to refuse to withdraw the presumpted price after October 2009, and the defendant suspended the construction of this case.

Ultimately, the Defendant did not complete the instant construction until the scheduled completion date.