1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. Of the plaintiffs' preliminary claims, the first instance court did not render judgment.

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiffs were first and second in the claim for damages from the joint tort against the Defendant, first and second in the claim for restitution due to the cancellation or termination of a contract, second in the claim for damages due to the nonperformance of a contractual obligation, third in the conclusion of a contract, and third in the conclusion of a contract, the first instance court did not determine the above third in the claim, and determined the remainder only

As to the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiffs appealed, and three preliminary claims whose judgment is omitted are transferred to the appellate court, and are included in the scope of the judgment of this court (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Da2253, Nov. 16, 2000). In a case where the appellate court makes a judgment on the preliminary claims omitted as above, it should be indicated in the text.

2. As to this part of the basic facts, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (from 12 parallels to 6 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance) shall be cited on the grounds of this judgment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. In light of the general structure and practice of the housing site sales development project under the trust method, trust company’s public trust, role in the housing site sales development project, and the fact that buyers generally trust trust trust trust company and trust company’s success possibility and safety of the project, etc., the Defendant, as an expert in the housing site sales development project, shared business affairs through securing trust to entrepreneurs and fund management as an expert in the housing site sales project of this case.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not properly confirm the fact that the commencement of the instant housing site sales business is impossible, and formed a wrong appearance so that the Plaintiffs trust as if the project is possible, and induced the Plaintiffs to conclude the instant housing site sales contract.

In addition, the defendant is also the above business.