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 this part of this Court’s reasoning is as follows, except for the second and fourth parts of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, this part is cited by the main text of

[Judgment of the court below was rendered, and the plaintiffs and the defendant appealed against the judgment of remanded case, but the judgment of the court below was affirmed on December 23, 2015 (Supreme Court Decision 2014Da9083).]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiffs did not allow the Plaintiffs’ occupancy by denying the validity of each of the instant sales contracts without any legal basis, while denying the validity of each of the instant sales contracts, while the Plaintiffs did not allow the occupancy of each of the instant sales contracts, and as a result, the Plaintiffs came to move into each of the instant households after December 23, 2015, which was sentenced and decided by the Supreme Court judgment of the prior lawsuit.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiffs money equivalent to the rent for each of the instant households from October 208, 2008 to December 23, 2015, which is the date of the Supreme Court’s decision in the preceding lawsuit, as damages for delay of the transfer of ownership and the obligation to deliver each of the instant households, as the date of completion of the instant apartment.

As part of the claim, 4,000,100 won and damages for delay shall be claimed respectively.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the purport of the entire arguments adopted prior to the judgment, the fact that the defendant bears the obligation to transfer and deliver ownership of each of the households of this case according to each of the sales contracts of this case. However, it is also acknowledged that the plaintiffs bear the obligation to pay the unpaid purchase price to the defendant according to each of the sales contracts of this case. The above obligation of the plaintiff and the defendant is a simultaneous performance relationship.