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

On April 9, 2015, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant concluded a sales contract stating that “the Plaintiff shall purchase from the Defendant the apartment of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “the instant apartment of this case”) at KRW 2.650,000,000,000,000 for contract deposit of KRW 265,000,000,000,000 for intermediate payment of KRW 1 billion on May 20, 2015; and that the remainder of KRW 1.385,00,000 shall be paid on June 15, 2015” (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

The Plaintiffs paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 265 million on the date of conclusion of the instant sales contract.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire argument that "the defendant should return the down payment to the plaintiffs, as the contract of this case was cancelled due to the reasons attributable to the defendant," which are judged as to the grounds for the plaintiffs' claim, even if the defendant sold the real estate to the plaintiffs at a price higher than the market price, such circumstance alone does not lead to the defendant's failure to perform the seller's duty under the contract of this case, and the remaining evidence alone does not lack any other evidence to acknowledge the defendant's cause for negligence, and there

Rather, if the purport of the entire argument is added to the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiffs intended to receive lease deposit from a lessor of a house previously residing and pay intermediate payments and remainders according to the instant sales contract, but the Plaintiffs were unable to pay them due to the Plaintiffs’ circumstances, and the Plaintiffs expressed to the Defendant on May 12, 2015 that “the instant sales contract is rescinded due to the Plaintiff’s circumstances.”

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' claims is without merit.

Since the defendant sold the apartment of this case to a higher level than the market price, the sales contract of this case is null and void against Article 103 or 104 of the Civil Code.