1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs ordering payment is revoked, respectively.

Plaintiffs, Defendant .

1. Partial acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance

A. Of the reasons why a party member should explain the instant case, the details and the details of each of the instant sales contract concluded between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, the Plaintiffs’ assertion to cancel the sales contract and the assertion to cancel the sales contract (the allegation to cancel the sales contract on the grounds of fraud or mistake), and the Defendants’ assertion to counter-be.

With the exception of the addition of the "additional Judgment" as stated in a claim, it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance [i.e., the corresponding part of the grounds for the judgment of the first instance (i.e., the determination of revocation of fraud or mistake) (i.e., the determination of revocation of a fraud or mistake)]. Thus, it

B. The Plaintiffs asserted to the following purport with respect to the rescission of the instant sales contract at the trial, namely, content-certified mail as of February 5, 2018, and content-certified mail as of February 13, 2018, which sent by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants, and urged the Defendants to perform the name of the part of the building owned and used by the lessee H by February 9, 2018, which is the date of delivery of the contract, and the lack of a lien. However, the Defendants expressed their intent to refuse to perform the above explanation obligation and the non-existence of a lien through the content-certified mail as of February 9, 2018 and the content-certified mail as of February 27, 2018, which sent to the Plaintiffs through L. Thus, each of the instant sales contracts can be rescinded as the Plaintiffs without providing the purchase-sale obligation (i.e.,, the purchase-sale obligation.

Therefore, each of the instant sales contracts asserts to the effect that the content-certified mail of March 6, 2018, which included the intent of rescission, was lawfully rescinded because it reached the Defendants.

However, it is difficult to view the Defendants’ fulfillment date of the duty to deliver the instant real estate as February 9, 2018 as the Plaintiffs’ assertion, and furthermore, G, etc. have the right of retention as alleged by the Plaintiffs.