All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 4, the court below rejected the Defendants’ assertion that the Plaintiff could not comply with the Plaintiff’s request due to the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the duty of prior performance under the instant agreement, on the grounds that the Plaintiff performed the duty of change of the owner’s name in the sole name of the city development that was rendered by the Defendant, the Plaintiff, under the instant agreement, to be borne by the Defendant for the urban development company (hereinafter “Defendant Young-gu Urban Development”), and the provisional disposition prohibited by the special agreement prohibiting civil preservation procedures under the instant agreement merely refers to a provisional disposition that obstructs the construction of the instant building. The provisional disposition does not include the provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of the right to sell the building, such as the instant provisional disposition, but does not include the case of the provisional disposition prohibiting

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of misapprehending the legal principles as to the interpretation

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records as to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court is justifiable to have rejected the Defendants’ assertion that, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant Cho Young-gu Urban Development transferred the business under the Commercial Act to Young-gu Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul Young-si”), Defendant Cho Young-si’s urban development was conducted a transfer of business, and the liability for the urban development of Defendant Cho Young-gu, the transferor, was extinguished after the lapse of two years thereafter, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of misapprehending

3. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 6, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, acquired the name of the owner of the instant building permit from Defendant Cho Han-dong Urban Development.