1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 5, 2016, the Plaintiffs entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase the purchase price of KRW 1.42 billion, Gangdong-gu Seoul E-gu and KRW 10,000,000 (hereinafter “instant site”), which is owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) as follows.

Subject matter of a real estate sales contract: Article 1 of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, F large 308С reinforced concrete structure / smoke, and Article 247.41㎡ [sale price and time] ① Seller and buyer enter into an agreement on the timing of payment as follows:

The down payment of KRW 1,420,000 shall be paid at the time of the contract and received KRW 1.32 billion on September 21, 2016.

970,000,000 won by succession to a seller or a buyer under Article 7 (Non-performance of Obligations and Compensation for Damages) (where there has been a default under this contract on a seller or buyer, the other party may demand in writing that the person who has defaulted perform the contract, and rescind

계약이 해제된 경우 매수인이 위약한 경우에는 계약금을 몰수당하고 매도인이 위약한 경우에는 계약금의 (이하 계약서의 문양으로 안보임) 특약사항 ＃현 시설 상태에서의 매매계약 ＃잔금은 대출금으로 승계함

B. On September 5, 2016, the Plaintiffs deposited KRW 100 million in the Defendant’s national bank account.

C. On September 19, 2016, Plaintiff C sent to the Defendant the word “I am on the issue of the content of the design of the pedestrian transport. I am on the back of the balance date with the consent letter, and I am able to prepare the report document for the destruction of the building, together with the report document for the destruction of the building, and make it possible to process the balance of the transfer document.”

On September 21, 2016, the Defendant prepared the documents for ownership transfer registration and met the Plaintiffs at the office of Plaintiff C, but the Plaintiffs are above C.

The defendant refused to pay the balance when demanding the consent form of this subsection, and on October 2016, the defendant refused to pay the balance.