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

A. On June 15, 2007, the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. concluded a sales contract with the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) on May 28, 2007: (a) the sales contract with the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) with the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) on June 28, 2007, as follows: (b) the sales contract with the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) on June 127, 2007: (c) the sales contract with the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) on June 46, 2007; (d) the sales contract with the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) on June 28, 200, 280,380,7954,006,000 F. 14, 2007.

B. On December 3, 2008, the rest of the plaintiffs except the plaintiff F asserted as follows: (a) the Seoul Central District Court 2008Gahap121444 on December 3, 2008; and (b) on December 16, 2008, the plaintiff F issued the Seoul Central District Court 2008Gadan450947 that the plaintiff could not utilize part of the part of the part of the part under the sales contract because the columns exist in each shop sold to the plaintiff; (b) at the time of entering into each sales contract of this case, the non-party company was unaware of the above fact without notifying the plaintiffs at the time of entering into the sales contract of this case; (c) the court of the first instance filed a lawsuit against the non-party company seeking the cancellation of the sales contract and the return of the sales price; and (d) on June 23, 2009 and November 5, 2009, the court ordered the non-party company to return the sales price paid by the plaintiffs.

Each of the above judgments was dismissed by the Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na74771 decided July 15, 2010 and the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Na44043 decided July 23, 2010 and became final and conclusive around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 and 3 shall be included.