1. The judgment of the first instance is modified in accordance with the number of successors in the trial as follows.

The Defendant’s successor.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following “the amended portion” as stipulated in paragraph (2).

2. The revised part of the judgment of the first instance is as follows: (a) “A” from C (hereinafter “C”) in the 8th page of the judgment of the first instance; and (b) “C” in the 11th page of the same 11 shall be amended as “the succeeding transferee” respectively.

Each "C" of the fourth, fourth, fifth, and eight acts in the judgment of the first instance shall be amended to each "Successor transferee".

The 4th, 9th, and 10th of the first instance judgment shall be amended as follows:

G. The trust agreement between the defendant and the successor to the instant hotel construction and sales business has expired on July 31, 2018, and as a result, the settlement agreement has been terminated between the defendant and the successor on October 30, 2018. As a result, the defendant's all obligations on the number of hotel buyers of the instant case were succeeded to as a comprehensive exemption from liability to the successor. [the grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1 through 4 (including each number number), Eul's evidence 7 and 8, and Eul's evidence 7 and 8, and the purport of the entire pleadings, all of the arguments are modified to "the defendant" as "the successor who has acquired the defendant's obligation to the plaintiff as a discharge from liability according to the termination of the trust relationship."

The defendant shall be corrected to "the succeeding transferee" in the fifth five pages of the judgment of the first instance.

7 pages 14 through 20 of the first instance judgment shall be amended as follows:

⑤ On November 29, 2018, after the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered, a successor asserts to the effect that the state of nonperformance under the instant sales contract was extinguished by closing the inspection apparatus installed on the wall of the instant heading room on November 29, 2018. According to the overall purport of the film and oral argument as to the evidence No. 6, the successor is recognized as having closed the instant inspection apparatus by the contact method, but this is recognized as having been on February 14, 2018 by the successor.