The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

A. On May 26, 2018, Plaintiff A concluded a sales contract with the fourth E of the building D, Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “instant condominium building”) with the sales price of KRW 359,470,00 (hereinafter referred to as “E”) for the instant apartment building, and Plaintiff B concluded a sales contract with the sales price of KRW 373,89,890,000 (hereinafter referred to as “F sales contract”) on May 26, 2018, respectively.

E The contract for sale in units is written by G as the buyer, the plaintiff A as the transferee who succeeded to the rights and obligations from G, and the contract for sale in units in units in F is written by H as the buyer, and the plaintiff B as the transferee who succeeded to the rights and obligations from H.

B. On May 26, 2018, Plaintiff A paid KRW 35,947,00 to H, and KRW 179,735,00 for intermediate payment over five occasions from July 15, 2018 to June 30, 2019, respectively, to the Defendant. Plaintiff B paid KRW 37,389,000 for the down payment of Fho Lake sales contract to H, and KRW 186,945,00 for five times from July 15, 2018 to June 30, 2019.

(c)

On November 25, 2019, the Plaintiffs sent to the Defendant a certified mail to the effect that “The drawings provided at the time of each of the instant sales contracts are installed in E Ho commercial buildings, and the entrance’s location was different from the above drawings, making it impossible to achieve the purpose of each of the instant sales contracts.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) Each of the instant sales contracts was concluded between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant.

2) The E commercial building, unlike the drawings provided by the Plaintiff A, is completely composed of the commercial building.