All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and, as long as the Plaintiff did not fully pay the sales balance on the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 of the lower judgment (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) concluded with B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) on February 23, 2004 and the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 of the lower judgment (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the scheduled date for the sales of the instant real estate arrives.

The Defendant cannot be deemed to have fulfilled the Defendant’s obligation to transfer or deliver ownership to the Plaintiff regarding the instant real estate. Therefore, the Defendant determined that the Defendant did not infringe the Plaintiff’s right to lease the instant real estate (i.e., delay of the Defendant’s delivery obligation).

In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the relevant legal principles, without failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

B. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that the Defendant’s obligation to transfer ownership of the instant real estate was concurrently performed with the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the remainder of sale in this case.

In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles as to simultaneous performance relations.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 3, the lower court, based on the circumstances set out in its reasoning, related to the parts legitimately sold prior to the bankruptcy of the City, at least between the Defendant, a contractor, B, and E (hereinafter “E”) and the company succeeding to the former.