All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the first ground of appeal, even though there is a somewhat exaggeration or falsity in advertising advertisement of goods, if it is possible to be recognized in light of the general commercial practice and good faith principle, it shall not be deemed to have been deceiving the first ground of appeal. However, if the specific facts about important matters in the transaction are falsely notified in a manner to the extent to be criticized in light of the duty of good faith, it constitutes deception

(See Supreme Court Decisions 92Da5265 delivered on August 13, 1993, 2008Da56118 delivered on November 27, 2008, etc.). The lower court determined that Defendant E and F are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred by the agreement jointly with the above Defendant E, F, etc. in accordance with Article 35 of the Civil Act, by taking account of the following circumstances in its reasoning: (a) Defendant E and F, when entering into a first sale contract with D, agreed that the construction of roads, farmland division, or single registration for each of the farmland of this case would be avoided; (b) deceiving the Plaintiff by falsely notifying the important matters of the transaction; and (c) Defendant E and F entered into a first sale contract with the Plaintiff at a price higher than the market price thereof; and (d) Defendant E and F, a joint tortfeasor, are jointly and severally liable for damages incurred therefrom.

The judgment below

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the legal principles on deception, road construction,

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the determination of the admission of facts or the ratio of limitation on the grounds for limitation of liability, such as comparative negligence, in tort damages cases, is deemed considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.