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

Plaintiff

A on April 10, 2012, among the land listed in the separate sheet from the Defendant on April 10, 2012, the Defendant purchased (hereinafter the above sales contract referred to as “instant one sales contract”) a building of KRW 890,000,000 for the Defendant’s share of KRW 14.7/29 of the attached sheet and KRW 2,000,000 (the seller shall deduct the amount of the secured obligation from the above price, KRW 450,000,000,000,000 for lease deposit, and KRW 40,000,000,000) and completed the registration of transfer of each ownership (shares) in the Plaintiff’s name on April 12, 2012. The special terms and conditions of the instant one sales contract include “The seller’s store is 203,204, 207, 276, and 28,67, and 70,02.”

Plaintiff

B On April 9, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased from the Plaintiff for KRW 16.57/62,39 of the price of KRW 16.57/62.42 of the 14.7/29 of the 14.7/29 of the 3.9/29 of the 14.7/29 of the 14.7/29 of the 14.29 of the 2013 List (hereinafter “the 2 sales contract”), and completed the respective transfer registration in the name of Plaintiff B on April 10, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] The facts that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the plaintiffs' claim for the purport of the whole argument, and the special terms and conditions of the contract for the first sale of this case stipulate that "Nos. 203, 204, 207, and 276 are about the first floor, and that the relevant store is about Nos. 28, 67, 68, and 70 on the second floor," but in fact, the above store cannot be specified due to its absence, and it is practically impossible to exercise its rights.

① Accordingly, the instant 1 sales contract and the instant 2 sales contract are null and void as a contract, the objective of which is to provide the benefits, which is an original impossibility.

② In addition, the Defendant, despite being well aware of the aforementioned circumstances, led the Plaintiffs to enter into the instant 1 and 2 sales contract by deceiving them.

Therefore, since the plaintiffs' declaration of intent to conclude the 1/2 sales contract of this case is by deception, the plaintiffs shall be revoked.

Judgment

The descriptions of evidence Nos. 3 and 5 are alone.