1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant B and D, including the Plaintiff’s claim extended in the trial, is as follows.

Basic Facts

The reasoning for this part of this Court is as stated in Paragraph (1) of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the use of the "No. 16, 2012," "No. 17, 2012," as "No. 23, 2012," and therefore, this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

With respect to the claim for damages against the Defendants, Plaintiff B and D (hereinafter the above Defendants referred to as “Defendant B, etc.”) did not perform the obligation to pay interest and sales balance on the secured debt under the name of Samgu New Mutual Savings Bank under the instant sales contract and the subsequent agreement (hereinafter the above interest and sales balance referred to as “the instant sales balance, etc.”), and if the sale balance is referred to as “the instant sales balance, etc.”, it did not perform the obligation to pay the sales balance.

The instant sales contract was terminated at the latest by serving the Defendant B, etc. a copy of the instant complaint stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent that “the instant sales contract is rescinded due to the nonperformance of obligation by Defendant B, etc.”

Defendant B, etc. is the purchaser of the instant sales contract, and Defendant C, a person who guaranteed the obligation of Defendant B, etc. under the instant sales contract, is jointly and severally liable for the Plaintiff to cancel the registration of establishment of the instant relocation that was completed prior to the instant provisional disposition registration due to the cancellation of the instant sales contract, but failed to perform the said obligation.

Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to KRW 130 million with the maximum amount of debt.

② Although the Defendants were the original purchaser who jointly constructed the instant housing, the Plaintiff suffered losses from the imposition of local tax of KRW 3,550,340, the industrial accident insurance premium of KRW 6,757,130, the employment insurance premium of KRW 1,477,040, due to the relationship with which each of 5/8 shares of the instant housing was transferred in order to secure the obligation to pay the remaining balance, etc. of the instant housing.

Therefore, the Defendants are liable for damages to the Plaintiff.