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

A. On October 27, 2016, the Plaintiffs concluded a contract with the Defendant to purchase eight houses (hereinafter “instant real estate”) among the five-story multi-household houses located in the Do government-si D’s multi-household D (hereinafter “instant loan”) owned by the Defendant to purchase eight houses (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the total amount of KRW 960 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. In the instant sales contract, Plaintiff A decided to purchase each of the seven units of 202, 301, 302, 401, 402, 501, 501, and 502 out of the above lending amounting to KRW 828,00,000,000 in total, and Plaintiff B decided to purchase the one unit of 201 from KRW 132,000,000,000. Of the sales amount, the total of KRW 170,000,000 in total, and the remainder of KRW 69,00,000 in total, on November 28, 2016, at the same time as the transfer registration and delivery of ownership on January 23, 2017, and in the case of Plaintiff A, the remaining amount should be deducted from the remainder when the deposit is returned to the lessee.

C. By October 28, 2016, the Plaintiffs paid directly to the Defendant the down payment of KRW 100 million ( KRW 14 million for Plaintiff A 86 million, KRW 170 million for intermediate payment on November 28, 2016, KRW 170 million for intermediate payment of KRW 150 million (Plaintiff B 20 million for Plaintiff A), and Plaintiff A returned KRW 7 million, which is part of the lease deposit, to Nonparty F, a lessee of this case, KRW 201 on December 21, 2016.

Meanwhile, the instant loan was newly constructed in April 2, 2014 and registered in the collective building ledger on April 2, 2014. At the time of the instant sales contract, the number of rooms with 401, 402, 504, and 502 units was extended without permission for each of 9 square meters, 9 square meters, 4.83 square meters, and 2.85 square meters.

On January 25, 2017, after the remainder of the payment date, the Plaintiffs notified the Defendant that the instant sales contract would be “defusing or terminating” on the ground that “the Plaintiff was “defiscing the illegal extension and failing to comply with the duty of disclosure at the time of the contract.”

【Ground of recognition】 There is no dispute, Gap No. 1.