1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants shall be revoked, and all the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

Facts of recognition

The court's reasoning for this part is as follows: "A defendant D shall be named as a contracting party" in Section 16 of Section 4 of the first instance judgment; "A witness J and H's testimony" in Section 8 of Section 7 shall be named as "A witness of the first instance court and the witness of the first instance court and the witness of the first instance court and the second instance court"; and "A witness of Section 8 shall be named as "A witness of the first instance court and the witness of the first instance court and the witness of the first instance court"; therefore, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On March 19, 2007, the Plaintiffs asserted as to the claim against Defendant D entered into each of the instant agreements with H who represented Defendant D. A. Home H had no authority to act as Defendant D.

However, H is an internal director of Defendant D, and each of the instant agreements (as referred to in subparagraphs A through 3, the same shall apply) stated Defendant D as the party, and the seal imprint was affixed to Defendant D’s seal imprint, and Defendant D’s seal imprint was attached, and the Plaintiffs believed that H had the authority to act on behalf of Defendant D in entering into each of the instant agreements, and there was justifiable reason for the Plaintiffs to believe that they were to act on behalf of Defendant D, and thus, Defendant D is liable by an expression agent under Article 125 or 126 of the Civil Act.

In addition, around May 10, 2012, Defendant D ratified each of the instant agreements since it consulted with the Plaintiffs on the fulfillment of the obligations under each of the instant agreements.

Therefore, even though Defendant D has a duty to sell the apartment units to the plaintiffs under the agreement of this case to 50% of the sales price of the apartment units to be newly constructed as the project of this case, the above obligation was impossible by transferring the business rights of this case to Defendant E. However, Defendant D is ① compensation for compensatory damages resulting from nonperformance of the obligation of this case, and ② compensation for delay calculated by deducting the sales price of the apartment units to be newly constructed as the project of this case from 50% of the sales price of the apartment units, and ② compensation for delay.