The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs against the defendant is reversed.

registration of prohibited matters.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding the plaintiffs' appeal

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court acknowledged that the Defendant’s simultaneous performance defense with respect to the Plaintiffs’ claim for transfer registration of ownership of each apartment building based on each of the instant parcelling-out contracts was defective, and that only the amount stated as the members’ contributions to the sales contract of this case was paid by the Plaintiffs (the commission of agency services and trust registration fees claimed by the Defendant were excluded from the sales price). (2) The Plaintiffs recognized the validity of the sales price as well as the amount deposited to the Defendant as the amount deposited to the Defendant as the substitute industry, deducted it from the sales price, and deducted it from the sales price, ③ calculated the unpaid amount by the Plaintiff by adding the late payment charges, etc. calculated separately by the Defendant, and received the Defendant’s simultaneous performance defense within such scope.

However, according to the documents on which the Defendant calculated the late payment charges (No. 27-1 through 8, No. 28) by the Defendant, the Defendant, unlike the original judgment, included the agency service charges and the registration fees for trust in the scope of the parcelling-out price, and without recognizing the validity of the funds deposited by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant as the sale price, calculated the late payment charges based on the different payment deadline different from that stated in each of the instant parcelling-out contracts or the Defendant’s application fees.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is inconsistent with the reasoning, and there is an error of law by acknowledging facts without evidence or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

The plaintiffs' ground of appeal on this point is with merit.

B. Prior to determining the grounds of appeal as to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3, an action against the claim for cancellation of registration is instituted ex officio.