2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The Plaintiffs are co-owners who own 1/2 shares in the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building E (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On December 2017, Plaintiff A built the instant building in the F Licensed Real Estate Agent Office, and the Defendant tried to purchase the instant building through another Licensed Real Estate Agent Office.

C. G, an employee of the F Licensed Real Estate Agent Office, prepared a sales contract dated December 27, 2017 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) stating that the sales price of the instant building is KRW 3.3 million, and that the down payment is KRW 30 million, the remainder KRW 273 million, at the time of the contract, shall be paid on January 29, 2018.

However, the instant sales contract contains only the personal information of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, and the seals of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant are not affixed, and the name and seal of the F Licensed Real Estate Agent, the representative of H Licensed Real Estate Agent, and the affiliated licensed real estate agent are not affixed.

Plaintiff

A, around 17:07 on December 27, 2017, sent its account number in writing to a staff member of the F Licensed Real Estate Agent Office. A’s staff member of the F Licensed Real Estate Agent Office sent a photograph of the sales contract of this case to A in writing, stating that the lessee’s details are confirmed on the same day, and at around 17:18 on the same day, the lessee’s details were sent to A, and G deposited KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff on December 27, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, part of witness G of the trial court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On December 27, 2017 between the Plaintiffs’ assertion and the Defendant, a sales contract with the purchase price of KRW 33 billion was concluded regarding the instant building. The Defendant paid KRW 5 million, which is part of the down payment of KRW 30 million, to the Plaintiffs.

However, as the Defendant did not pay the remainder down payment of KRW 25 million and the remainder KRW 273 million, the instant case is subject to the Defendant’s notification of cancellation of the sales contract due to nonperformance of obligation.