1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendants' independent party intervenors in excess of the money ordered to be paid below.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Of the eight pages of the judgment of the first instance court, the phrase "... the conclusion of the apartment sale contract of this case between AG and the Defendants" shall be made as follows.

(C) The Defendants concluded each of the instant apartment sales contracts (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with AG from around 2006 to around 2008, and agreed that the down payment shall be paid twice in advance, and the intermediate payment shall be paid in an amount equivalent to 10% of each purchase price on six occasions at each due date, and the balance equivalent to 20% of the purchase price shall be paid on the designated date of occupancy.

2) In addition, the sales contract in this case includes the agreement that, if the sales contract is cancelled due to the causes attributable to the buyers such as intermediate payment and unpaid balance, 10% of the total sales price shall revert to AG as penalty, and AG shall return the remainder after deducting the above penalty from the sales price already received to the buyer, but shall return the sales price plus the interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of receipt to the date of refund. On the other hand, the buyer may cancel the sales contract if he can not move into within 3 months from the scheduled date of occupancy due to the causes attributable to AG. In this case, AG and AK Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AK”) as the apartment contractor in this case include the agreement that the buyer shall pay 10% of the total sales price to the buyer as penalty. On the other hand, around around 206, the Plaintiff, the Korean Bank (hereinafter “Korea Bank”), the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, the Nonghyup Bank, and the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (hereinafter “former Bank”).