2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendant C.

A. On May 2, 2011, the Plaintiffs entered into a contract with Defendant D, a licensed real estate agent of the F Licensed Real Estate Agent Office located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, U.S., to purchase the land listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) and the building listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 3 (hereinafter “instant building”) from Defendant C (hereinafter “instant building”) by combining the instant land with the instant land at KRW 590,000,000.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

According to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiffs paid KRW 60,000,000 on the day of the contract to Defendant C, and KRW 530,000,000 on May 31, 2011, respectively. The Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 1, 201 as the receipt of KRW 53941 on each of the instant real estates.

C. However, the instant building was newly built on the instant land on December 5, 2007 by Defendant C, obtained approval for use on the basis of eight households from the Ulsan-gun Office on July 1, 2008, and was repaired without permission under the Building Act, and was substantially repaired on the second and third floors without permission for large-scale repair under the Building Act, and increased by seven households on the second and fourth floor.

After that, the Plaintiffs received a delivery of the instant real estate and concluded a lease agreement on each unit of the instant building. On December 4, 2012, the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City, the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City, as the instant building was repaired on a large scale without permission in violation of Article 11 of the Building Act, and accordingly, on December 31, 2012, the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City, pursuant to Article 79 of the Building Act, issued a corrective order for a non-violationed building with the purport that enforcement fines shall be repeatedly imposed until a corrective order is implemented within the limit of two times per year pursuant to Article 80 of the Building Act if the correction is not made within the given period. The Plaintiffs failed to comply with such order and sought correction of the non-violationed building again on January 14, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3.