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

A. The parties 1) K is the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government L Commercial Building (hereinafter “instant building”).

(2) Defendant G is the owner of Mho Lake, Nho Lake, andO, and the network is the pilot of the above K. Defendant G is a person who has operated a beer house under the trade name of “P” by leasing part of the Nho Lake and O of the instant building. Defendant H is a licensed real estate agent belonging to the office of real estate brokers located in Qho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and Defendant I is a brokerage assistant of the said office, and Defendant F is an employee of the said office.

3) The network D died on January 16, 2019. The deceased’s heir was Defendant E, S, and T, who is the spouse of the deceased. The deceased’s heir renounced inheritance, and Defendant E renounced qualified acceptance. (B) As to the building M, N, andO of the instant case, U Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “U”) established the first priority collective security (hereinafter “the instant first priority collective security”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 8.4 billion on October 31, 2006, and C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “V”), and W Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “W”), the second priority collective security (hereinafter “instant second priority collective security”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 8.4 billion on June 23, 2008.

2) W applied for a voluntary auction on the instant building M M, N, andO, and the Seoul Central District Court rendered a voluntary auction decision (X) on June 21, 201. On April 15, 2013, W withdrawn the said request for auction and revoked the X auction procedure. 3) After that, CY limited liability company filed a request for auction on the instant building M, N, andO, and the Seoul Central District Court rendered a decision on the commencement of auction on May 3, 2013.

(Z) On January 10, 2013, Plaintiff A (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) premised on the cancellation of the auction procedure regarding the instant building by Defendant F’s introduction from around January 10, 2013, the part on which Defendant G operated P (hereinafter “instant 1 real estate”).

B intended to purchase the amount of KRW 1.9 billion.

After that, the plaintiff A on May 10, 2013.