1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff falling under the following order shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the use of or addition to the three parts of the judgment of the first instance as follows. As such, this is the same as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

“Witness D” in the last sentence of the second, as “Witness D”;

(b) Forms 1, 4, 1, and 3 below at the last place of the second parallel, each of the following "the result of Defendant C's personal examination" has been applied to "the result of the Defendant C's personal examination against Defendant C by the court of first instance".

C. The Defendants of simultaneous performance defense at the same time revised and added the following parts from the end of the 4th parallel conduct “(3) concurrent performance defense” to the effect that they cannot comply with a claim for ownership transfer registration and delivery of ownership on the real estate stated in the separate sheet until the remainder of the purchase price of this case is paid from the Plaintiff. In the event a real estate sales contract was concluded, the seller’s obligation for ownership transfer registration and delivery and the buyer’s obligation for the remainder payment are in a simultaneous performance relationship. In the event the buyer of the real estate agreed to take over the collateral obligation on the object of sale and deduct the amount of the obligation from the purchase price, the obligation should be deemed as the performance acquisition, not the seller’s obligation to exempt the seller, and the buyer cannot be construed to assume the obligation to pay the above obligation in reality, barring any special circumstances, and the buyer fulfilled the obligation to pay the remainder after deducting the amount from the purchase price (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da130850, Jul. 9, 2004).