1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

Facts of recognition

The court's explanation about this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows.

Except for partial revision like paragraph 1, the first-class judgment column for the reasons for the judgment of the first instance.

Since it is the same as the statement in the port, it is quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The part of the judgment of the first instance court, which corrected the part of the instant land from the lower part of the judgment No. 3, 4 to 1, 400, i.e., the Defendants did not comply with it.” The following was added to the table of suspension No. 3 of the judgment of the first instance court, which deleted the part of each of the instant land from the lower part of the judgment. 4) As the Defendant NetworkF died on April 3, 2019, Defendant N,O, P, Q, and R took over the instant lawsuit at the trial. The Plaintiffs’ assertion summary of the Plaintiffs’ claim and Defendant NetworkF and G (hereinafter “Defendants”) are obliged to secure access roads to each of the instant land under each of the instant contracts to obtain building permission in their names to the extent that it does not need to be specifically distinguishable. Such obligations must be fulfilled first than the obligation of the Plaintiffs to pay the remainder.

Nevertheless, the Defendants failed to perform the above prior performance obligation, and rather clearly expressed their intent to refuse such performance, so the Plaintiffs cancel each of the instant contracts by delivering a duplicate of the instant complaint.

Therefore, the defendants are obligated to pay the down payment paid by the plaintiffs as well as the penalty equivalent to the down payment under each of the above contracts.

Judgment

In full view of the following circumstances revealed in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 and 11 (including paper numbers), the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone cannot be deemed as including the Defendants’ obligation to obtain a building permit under their respective names and to obtain a building permit under the name of the defendants, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the Defendants did not perform the above obligations.