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.

The reasoning of this court's ruling of the first instance court is as follows, and thus, it is consistent with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where the pertinent matters in the judgment of the first instance are advanced as follows.

2. The "C" of the 8th parallel shall be changed to "P".

2. The "F" of the 14th parallel shall be changed to "E".

Each 3rd 2nd 2nd and 4th 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 201, " December 8, 2011" shall be described as " February 2, 2012."

At the end of the 6th five parallels, “The timing when the Gu or the plaintiffs received loans from financial institutions and the new construction time of the building of this case is significantly different, and most of the above loans claimed by the plaintiffs in light of the loan amount and the purchase price of the land and hanok in this case are deemed to have been used for the acquisition of the land of this case and hanok, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the construction of the building of this case was required otherwise.”

8 Myeon 8's "3,447,500 won" shall be "3,437,500 won".

8.On the 13th page, the following shall be added:

【Plaintiff asserts that the litigation costs required in the instant lawsuit should be deducted from the necessary expenses. However, according to the overall purport of the evidence Nos. 76 and No. 13 as well as the whole pleadings, the Defendant recognized the litigation costs required in the instant lawsuit as the necessary expenses and corrected the comprehensive income tax of this case on May 8, 2014 as the necessary expenses, and there is no evidence to support that the lawsuit costs in excess of the necessary expenses have been spent. Therefore, the Plaintiff asserted that there was no ground to regard the compensation for delay as other income in the Income Tax Act at the time of 201, while Article 21 (1) 10 of the Income Tax Act, which provides “the penalty and compensation received due to a breach or termination of a contract,” as other income, has existed before 2011, the above assertion is without merit. The judgment of the first instance court is justifiable.

The plaintiffs.