2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is that this part of the judgment regarding the cancellation of quantitative sale and the claim for price reduction is consistent with the plaintiffs’ assertion that the sales contract of this case is the sale and purchase designated by quantity, but it is identical with the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding “part of witness E and H’s testimony” as evidence of rejection. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

B. The Plaintiffs indicated to the Defendants at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract that they run the business of newly constructing and selling four small-scale houses of approximately 70 square meters of the site area and approximately 30 square meters of the building area on the ground of the instant site. After the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiffs discovered the fact that some of the area of the instant site was included in a ditch in the course of conducting a temporary partition in order to prepare a temporary partition plan and designate the location of the temporary partition. The Plaintiffs did not conclude the instant sales contract if they knew that the area of the instant site was insufficient. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs asserted that the instant sales contract was revoked by the delivery of a duplicate of the instant complaint.

According to the evidence Nos. 10 and 13, witness D, witness E, and witness E of the court of first instance, Plaintiff Co., Ltd.: (a) was a company operating a new house construction, sale, and lease business; and (b) the Plaintiffs newly construct and sell the housing on the instant site to Defendants or E, through D at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract.