1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are 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 for the court's explanation as to this case is that the evidence submitted by the court of first instance was prepared in the absolute coercion state due to Defendant J's assault and intimidation, and thus, the plaintiff A revoked the plaintiff A's defective declaration of intent in a state of invalidation or coercion. Furthermore, even after the completion of the mold of renunciation as of August 31, 2007, the plaintiff A continued construction of the apartment house of this case, and thus the above waiver was invalidated, it is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion, or difficult to believe that the above waiver was invalidated, and the plaintiff A rejected each statement of evidence of No. 43 through No. 55 (including the number of pages where the above waiver was invalidated), and since the judgment on new argument made by the plaintiff B at the court of first instance is the same as the statement in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the judgment as set forth below 2, it is decided to accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As to the new argument made by the Plaintiff B in the trial, the Plaintiff B signed the written waiver of February 13, 2008 and the written waiver of the execution of this case. However, it argues that the Plaintiff B’s signing on each of the above written notes is not only based on Defendant J’s deception but also on the mistake that it may receive the construction cost upon signing on each of the above written notes at least, and that the said written notes may have been paid. Therefore, the Plaintiff B asserts that the said written declaration of intent was cancelled as a written statement on July 24, 2012.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff B signed the Plaintiff’s waiver of February 13, 2008 and the instant letter of performance under the circumstances induced by Defendant J or mistake caused by Defendant J, as alleged by the Plaintiff B solely based on the statement of evidence No. 57, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff B's assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the first instance court's decision is justified with this conclusion, and the plaintiffs' appeal is without merit.