1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Claims and the purport of appeal

1. The reasons for this part of the underlying facts are as follows, and the reasons for this decision are as stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the first instance, except for the partial dismissal as follows. Thus, this part of the underlying facts is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary part] Under the fourth sentence of the first instance judgment, “Adembling 6 acts” was raised (hereinafter “the instant litigation”).

The first instance court's decision 5 pages 1 to 2 are as follows.

“3) Meanwhile, the instant building was demolished on January 1, 2019 based on the first instance judgment of the said court with which a provisional execution was declared. On August 9, 2019, the registration record was closed after the registration of destruction was completed on July 17, 2019 with respect to the instant building.

It is true that “the addition” is made.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 10, 36, Eul evidence and images Nos. 4 through 7 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. Plaintiff B entered into a lease contract with respect to land of JJ 47,837 square meters, including each of the instant land between I and K, and the Eme park development project was implemented. Plaintiff B was entrusted by Plaintiff B and was planned to operate the Eme park development project ( Plaintiff B was planned to construct one of the buildings of the above theme park on the ground of each of the instant land). However, the Defendant did not perform the Plaintiff’s duty to transfer each of the instant land and the removal duty of the instant building without permission despite the termination of the lease contract and the lending contract with intent to interfere with the development and operation of theme park.

B. The plaintiff A could not conclude an entrustment contract for the operation of the Eme park between the plaintiff B and the plaintiff B due to the above interference by the defendant's above interference.