1. The plaintiffs' appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except where the plaintiffs make an additional determination as to the conjunctive claim in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 42

(2) On January 1, 201, the Plaintiffs asserted that “The Defendant is obligated to pay the amount stated in the purport of the claim to the Plaintiffs in accordance with each of the above agreements, since the Defendant promised to grant a right to use a new temple, the Defendant is obligated to pay the amount stated in the purport of the claim to the Plaintiffs according to each of the above agreements.”

However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is difficult to recognize that the defendant made the above agreement with the plaintiffs individually. Thus, the above argument by the plaintiffs is without merit without further review.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' primary claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified. Thus, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is just, and the plaintiffs' additional preliminary claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.