2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. On December 5, 2015, the Plaintiffs entered into a contract with the Defendants to purchase each real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) of KRW 2.184 billion as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and the down payment of KRW 210 million (hereinafter “instant contract”) on the date of the contract, the remainder of KRW 1.974 million shall be paid on the date of the contract, as well as on February 4, 2016, respectively, and the lease agreement entered into with the Defendants on the instant real estate was stipulated to be accepted by the Plaintiffs.

On the same day, the Plaintiffs paid 200 million won the down payment to the Defendants.

B. However, in relation to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiffs pointed out that there are problems, such as ① an agreement on rent without permission regarding subparagraph 202, ② additional imposition of enforcement fines on a non-violationed building, ③ visit, and the defect of real estate in a toilet room room, etc., and expressed their intent not to pay any balance unless the said problems are resolved to the Defendants. On February 5, 2016, the Defendants sent to the Plaintiffs a document verifying that “The matters pointed out by the Plaintiffs are irrelevant to the validity of the instant sales contract, and, on February 18, 2016, the instant sales contract is rescinded, and the down payment is attributed to the Defendants as damages.”

C. On February 11, 2016, the Plaintiffs sent to the Defendants a content-certified mail to the effect that the issue regarding the instant sales contract was to be resolved by February 19, 2016, where the remaining payment date was excessive.

On February 19, 2016, the Defendants sent the content-certified mail to the Plaintiffs, stating that “The instant sales contract was cancelled on the grounds of unpaid amounts and the down payment belongs to the Defendants as damages.”

E. On February 25, 2016, the plaintiffs expressed their intent to cancel the contract to the defendants on February 25, 2016 is unfair, and the issue that exists in relation to the instant sales contract is attributable to the defendants, and thus, the plaintiffs are subject to the grounds