All appeals by the plaintiffs against the defendant C Co., Ltd. and appeals by the defendant D Regional Housing Association against the plaintiffs.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs and the defendant union are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court. Even if each evidence submitted to this court was presented to the court in the first instance, it is acknowledged that the facts of the first instance court and the judgment are justified.

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows: "No. 2 through No. 11" of No. 5 of the first instance trial No. 5 of the judgment, "No. 2 through No. 10 of the first instance court's 10 shall be stated as follows: "In accordance with the purport of the whole pleadings No. 2 and No. 8 of the evidence, it may be recognized that the plaintiffs and the defendant union agreed to cancel each sales contract of the company K (hereinafter "K") to whom the right to dispose of each sales contract was delegated by the plaintiffs and the defendant union to dispose of each sales contract," and the defendant union's assertion that the defendant union emphasizes or adds to this court is identical to the ground for the first instance judgment, and therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The parties to the instant sales contract asserted by the Defendant Cooperative are the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Company, and even if otherwise, the Defendant Cooperative terminated the business agency contract between K around April 2018, and thus, the rescission of the agreement between the Plaintiffs and K has any impact on the Defendant Cooperative.

Thus, the sales contract of this case was cancelled.

Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot accept a claim for the return of down payment.

B. We examined the judgment, as seen earlier, that the parties to the instant sales contract are the plaintiffs and the defendant association (Article 10(2) of the judgment of the first instance court). Furthermore, considering that I added the whole purport of the arguments in the items as Gap evidence Nos. 2, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 19 and Eul evidence Nos. 19, the plaintiffs made the instant sales contract between K and K with the authority to dispose of the remaining households and the general sales share after recruiting the first and second members as agent of the defendant association (see Article 10(2) of the agency contract).