1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as follows, except for modification or addition as follows, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Defendant D, C, E, and F shall be amended to “Codefendant D, C, E, and F in the first instance trial” and “Defendant B” shall be amended to “Defendant”.

The seller “Defendant B” shall be amended by the seller “B” and “B” to “B” and “B”.

Part V of the judgment of the first instance shall be amended to "C and I" under the 1st sentence below the 5th sentence.

The 7th 20th 20th son of the judgment of the first instance shall be rescinded, and the next 20th son shall add “the right to recover from the contract upon cancellation or the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment under Article 537

Then, the text of the first instance judgment 8th 17th 17th " has a duty to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the same amount to the Plaintiff when it is based on the legal principles of risk burden, etc. as seen below, even if there is no cause attributable to the said D, the principal and the bank shall be liable for the principal and the interest when the defect occurred as above."

The 10th to 12th parallels of the first instance judgment shall be amended as follows:

3) As seen earlier, determination as to the assertion that the right to claim restitution or the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment arising from the impossibility of the performance of each of the instant sales contracts is the right to claim restitution based on the rescission of the contract, the nonperformance of the obligation under each of the instant sales contracts is due to the cancellation of the right to claim restitution against the Defendant. It is difficult to view that such cancellation is attributable to the seller, such as the Defendant, C, and I. Therefore, the seller, such as the Defendant, C, and I, bears the duty to restore the buyer on the ground of the rescission of the contract.