1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. According to the written evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 3, it is recognized that the Plaintiffs purchased DJ 126§³ from the Defendant on April 5, 2019 (hereinafter “instant land”) and multi-family houses on the ground thereof from the Defendant on April 5, 2019.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiffs asserted 1) purchased the instant land and the neighboring land, and planned to newly construct a new multi-family house, and accordingly, purchased the instant land in KRW 21.5 million per square year. As a result of the purchase, the entire area of the instant land is merely 96 square meters different from the public record, and thus, the Defendant shall return to the Plaintiffs the amount of KRW 195,650,000 corresponding to the said insufficient area out of the total purchase price. (2) Even if the instant land area conforms to the public record, a neighboring land occupant has violated three square meters out of the instant land, and the Defendant did not deliver the part to the Plaintiffs, and thus, the Defendant must return KRW 19,51,162 corresponding to the said area out of the total purchase price to the Plaintiffs.

B. First of all, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the actual area of the instant land is different from that recorded in the public register, and rather, according to the result of the appraisal commission with regard to appraiser E, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is recognized as having been the same 126 square meters as the area recorded in the public register. Thus, this part of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit without any need to examine the remainder. Then, according to the result of the said appraisal entrustment, the Plaintiff’s allegation was examined as to the instant land and its neighboring land, and there is a shaking of the wall removed between F in the light of the above appraisal entrustment, and the connection with the fence was recognized as having invaded three square meters out of the instant land. In light of the fact that the said fence was removed, and the Plaintiffs were to occupy the entire area of the instant land, the said fence was removed, and it appears that the Plaintiffs were occupying the entire area of the instant land.