1. All appeals by the Defendants against the Plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the determination of a new assertion by the Defendants in this court under paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. 1) The Defendants’ assertion that the instant confirmation document is null and void includes the content that the Defendants would bear capital gains tax of KRW 10,000,000 to secure the execution of the instant sales contract, but the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone contains the content that the Defendants would bear capital gains tax of KRW 10,00,000 to the Defendant D, who is the purchaser of the instant land, is unable to change the owner’s name and not to harm ownership transfer registration. The Defendant D, who purchased the instant land in order to newly construct and sell loan and sell the instant land. Therefore, the instant confirmation document is null and void as an unfair legal act, and is also null and void.

Inasmuch as it is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiffs were prepared by taking advantage of the Defendants’ poor condition, it cannot be deemed that the preparation of the instant confirmation form constitutes an unfair juristic act.

The above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s claim in the Notarial Deed is conditional claim 1. The Plaintiffs’ claim in the instant Notarial Deed is conditional claim premised on the premise that the Plaintiffs would cause G to change the name of the owner of the instant land, thereby enabling Defendant D to develop the instant land as soon as possible. The Plaintiff B did not cause any change in the name of the owner, thereby failing to comply with the Plaintiffs’ claim.