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 cited part of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the conclusion among the reasons for the entry with respect to this case is identical to the corresponding part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On the ground of the second judgment of the first instance, the part proposed by this Court in dismissal or in addition, the 10th "H" from the bottom of the second judgment of the second instance to Q.

The last sentence of the judgment of the first instance court, the last sentence of the third part, the last sentence of the third part, and the "M land" of the fourth part shall be respectively raised to "O land".

Article 6 of the first instance court's Decision 4 and 5 of the "the fact that it appears to be a prior entry" means "the fact that it is necessary to conduct a survey on the part to be established as a prior access route and to conduct an administrative procedure such as authorization and permission for development activities for land category change, cadastral division, etc., and such administrative procedure seems to be inevitable by the defendants, who are currently owned holders.

On the 6th judgment of the first instance court, the "this Court" in the 6th judgment shall be "the court of the first instance".

From the 6th judgment of the court of first instance, the second "the second lease" shall be regarded as "the first sale".

The following details shall be added between the 7th judgment of the first instance and the 8th judgment:

As to this, the Defendants asserted to the effect that it is unreasonable to regard the original down payment of KRW 1.5 million as the liquidated damages, even though the sales amount of the instant sales contract was reduced from KRW 1.166 million to KRW 1.167 billion.3 million.

However, the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not modify the provisions of the instant sales contract, which set the down payment as the amount of compensation when concluding an agreement with the second agreement, and did not provide that the instant sales contract shall pay the down payment in proportion to the specific ratio of the sales price. Therefore, the estimated amount of compensation for damages based on the down payment or the down payment is reduced as the sales price was reduced.