1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is that the court below rejected the entry of evidence No. 27, which is insufficient to recognize the plaintiffs' assertion as evidence submitted in the court of first instance. The following Paragraph 2 is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the judgment at the court of first instance, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. At the time of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiffs knew that the Plaintiffs’ co-ownership shares were included in the subject matter of sale. However, the Defendants came to know that the land was excluded from the subject matter of sale after the date of the instant sales contract, and asserted that the Defendants did not include the Plaintiffs’ co-ownership shares in L among the land for the purpose of having J use the subject matter of sale free of charge in collusion with intention, negligence

The Plaintiffs’ assertion was known to have concluded the instant sales contract with the purport of selling the instant land and buildings in KRW 3.15 million, including the Plaintiffs’ co-ownership shares, among L, but, in cases where the Plaintiffs’ co-ownership shares were not included in the subject matter of sale, and the Defendants breached their obligations, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the instant land and buildings were sold only the instant land and buildings in KRW 3.15 billion, and it cannot be deemed that there still occur any damage to the Plaintiffs, the seller, as they still own the L land and buildings in KRW 3.15 billion.

On the other hand, the plaintiffs' assertion should be concluded separately from the sales contract of this case. If the defendants breached their obligations by omitting the mediation of entering into a sales contract of L out of L among land with intentional negligence, there is no evidence that the plaintiffs requested the defendants to mediate the sale of the plaintiffs' co-ownership shares among L out of land as seen in the part of the first instance judgment, and the plaintiffs purchase price.