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.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the part cited in paragraph (2) below and the part concerning the plaintiffs’ assertion as to this case as stated in paragraph (3), and therefore, it is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with

2. Of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, each “this Court” is replaced by each “Seosan Branch of Daejeon District Court”.

If the first instance judgment No. 5, the first instance court’s judgment No. 11 to 13, and the first instance court’s judgment No. 2014Na2015482,O appealed against the foregoing first instance judgment, and appealed as Seoul High Court No. 2014Na2015482, the said appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing both the O’s appeal on January 29, 2015 and the conjunctive claim added to the above court, and the said judgment of the first instance court and the appellate court were changed to “the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.”

No. 11 of the judgment of the first instance, "F" shall be added to "no. 13."

No. 12 of the judgment of the first instance, “I cannot make a proposal,” and Defendant E and F, even after February 15, 2017, after the deposit, agreed with the U.S. corporation that made a purchase through M, thereby changing the said deposit to “I cannot see it as the settlement of accounts under Article 2. 2. 4 of the instant agreement.”

No. 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following details shall be added.

In addition, according to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 10 and 11 as well as the entire pleadings, U.S. corporation may recognize the fact that the agreement on sale was underway by sending the letter of intent to sell the instant real estate to Defendant E and F on February 15, 2017. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that M was involved in the agreement on sale, and the fact that the agreement on sale was reached on February 15, 2017 cannot be denied the validity of settlement arising from the deposit as of December 28, 2016.

3. Additional determination

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is as follows.