1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim that changed in exchange in this court is dismissed.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 24, 2018, D, the father of the Plaintiffs, purchased (hereinafter “the primary sales contract”) KRW 184,800,000 (hereinafter “the purchase price”) from E, the representative of Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant”) as KRW 184,80,000,000, out of KRW 3,150 square meters of Pyeongtaek-si F. 3,150 square meters, and paid KRW 20,00,000 on the same day the down payment.

At the time of the above sales contract, the defendant company affixed the seal to the sales contract.

B. After that, around October 29, 2018, D changed the volume of 120 square meters of the sales area of the said first sales contract to 50 square meters and concluded a new sales contract with the Defendants as their children. However, the date of the first sales contract was agreed to prepare a sales contract retroactively to the date of the first sales contract.

C. Accordingly, as of October 24, 2018, the Plaintiffs purchased 165 square meters (50 square meters, hereinafter “instant real estate”) from Defendant B as the sales price of KRW 77,000,000 (per square meters, 1,540,000) out of the 3,150 square meters of Pyeongtaek-siF 3,150 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from Defendant B as of October 24, 201; and the down payment of KRW 20,000,000 on the same day is replaced by the down payment that was previously paid; however, the Defendant Company participated as a sales agent;

(hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”). [Grounds for recognition] The parties to the instant sales contract is without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion 1) at the time of entering into the instant sales contract with the defendants, the plaintiffs revealed that they would stop commercial buildings on the real estate of this case. The plaintiffs purchased the above real estate on the ground that the fourth right bypass was located in the vicinity of the instant real estate, and the employees of the defendant company confirmed this and thus, they were included in the terms of the contract. However, at the time of the instant sales contract, the urban planning was revoked on the fourth right bypass, and the real estate of this case is allowed to stop commercial buildings.