A. In regard to the construction of a 4-story building (1, 2, 3, and 4-story residential facilities, 3, and 4-story residential houses, hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground of 210.9 square meters in Jeju-si, the Plaintiffs gave a contract to Defendant C and D without setting the construction cost, and Defendant C and D began construction work on February 2015 according to the drawing designed by Defendant E.

B. Around February 2015, the Plaintiffs paid KRW 150,000,00 as advance payment to Defendant C and D.

C. On March 2015, the Plaintiffs decided to suspend construction as the refuge passage was narrowed and to settle the construction cost with Defendant C, D, and the construction cost.

Of the 4th floor above ground at the time of the discontinuance of construction work, the construction cost calculated by the Si Central Cost Account Statement is KRW 122,710,000, as the part of the 2nd floor above ground is a part of steel.

E. According to Article 41 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act on the part contrary to the Building Act, buildings of the same 2 or more floors as the instant building, which are the main entrance leading to the outside of the building in the case of neighborhood living facilities, and passage leading to the road from the escape stairs and special escape stairs leading to the outside of the building, shall be secured at least 1.5m in the effective width.

However, the design drawing of the building of this case (see the attached drawing) is designed to design the effective width of 2.35m parking lots and the escape passage of 0.5m from the entrance to the outside via the escape passage from the second floor of the building of this case, and the contractor is merely 0.5m if the escape passage is designed in accordance with the above design drawing and the width of the parking lot is excluded from the parking lot, and thus, the completion permission cannot be obtained.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3, 9, 10, 12, 14 (including additional numbers), Eul 3, and each fact inquiry results against appraiser G, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the fact that the obligation to return advance payment was acknowledged, the Plaintiffs, Defendant C, and D agreed on the discontinuance of construction and agreed on the settlement of the construction cost.