1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that the defendant-related part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justifiable even if the plaintiff's testimony of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 8 (including a serial number) and witness E of the court of first instance submitted by the court of first instance is added, and there is no error as alleged by the plaintiffs as the grounds for appeal) and the same shall be quoted

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and all appeals against the plaintiffs against the defendant are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(1) The Plaintiff filed an application for the resumption of argument with the Plaintiff on July 18, 2019, claiming that the instant sales contract was rescinded as the Defendant’s liability, claiming that the contract was rescinded, and filed for the resumption of argument with the Defendant. However, even if the instant sales contract was rescinded as the Defendant’s liability, unless it is acknowledged that there was a special agreement for the removal of the instant stable at the time of the instant sales contract, it cannot be deemed that the agreement exists under the instant special agreement, or that the Plaintiff’s damage caused by the removal of the stable constitutes damage caused by the rescission of the instant sales contract. However, the Plaintiffs do not present any additional evidence proving the existence of the said special agreement upon filing an application for the resumption of argument. Accordingly, it is difficult to deem that it is necessary to further examine the Plaintiff’s application for the resumption of argument.