All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court determined that it was insufficient to prove that H, at the time of cancelling the sales contract, provided the Plaintiffs with the obligation to register ownership transfer on the ground of the non-payment of the sales contract to the buyers, who were the buyers, by subrogation of H, Co., Ltd.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding provision of performance as seen in the grounds of appeal, or by erroneously recognizing facts beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion that Defendant FF corporation is obligated to first settle the sales price with the public sale price of the real estate sold in this case.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, although the lower court’s reasoning was somewhat inappropriate, it did not err in its judgment that rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion, by misapprehending the legal principles on the trust company’s duty pursuant to the disposal of the object of trust sold in lots, and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.