All appeals are dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the part of appeal by the plaintiffs (appointed parties) and the designated parties is assessed against them.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Examining the record as to the grounds of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) as to the grounds of appeal No. 1, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on stamp correction and litigation structure in determining that the appeal by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) were unlawful, on the ground that the lower court did not attach a legitimate amount to the petition of appeal, and that the period for correction of stamp correction was not excessive, even though the lower court received an order to correct stamp correction, and did not correct stamp accordingly.

(2) As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2, 3, and 4, the argument related to the legitimacy of the merits in the instant case where the court below rejected the appeal by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) by unlawful means is not a legitimate ground of appeal.

2. (1) As to the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion on the misapprehension of legal principles as to the occurrence and scope of duty to restore due to the cancellation of a sales contract is first asserted in the final appeal, and thus, cannot be a legitimate

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, this part of the assertion is unacceptable.

(2) Examining the record of the misapprehension of the legal principles as to offset, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to offset against the Plaintiffs’ claim for return, such as the sale price, and Defendant C’s claim for reimbursement equivalent to the amount of subrogation principal of the intermediate payment loan, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

(3) Examining the record on the assertion of reduction of penalty, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine in rejecting the Plaintiffs’ claim of reduction of penalty for reasons indicated in its holding.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against them.