1. The part of the claim No. 1 of the principal lawsuit of this case is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant, the designated party).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 7, 2013, the Defendants purchased approximately 1,000 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from among the Plaintiff, etc., who owned one-half shares of each of the 6,714 square meters of the total area of 6,714 square meters in Hongcheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Gangwon-do.

(F) In the following, the indication of real estate is indicated as “F” but is indicated as “E”’s clerical error in the Gangseo-gun Hongcheon-gun E (Real Estate Sales Contract).

Before a site, KRW 100,000 sales price: KRW 90 million: 20 million; remainder: KRW 70 million (payment on November 30, 2013), but the current status of the sales price is created.

B. On October 7, 2013, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff, etc. the down payment of KRW 20 million, and the intermediate payment of KRW 20 million, which was not agreed upon on October 21, 2013, respectively.

C. As the Plaintiff et al. did not open access roads to the instant road, the Defendants filed a lawsuit claiming the rescission of the instant sales contract and the refund of KRW 40 million with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Da5173195 on December 4, 2013. The Defendants again expressed their intent to cancel the instant sales contract as the instant counterclaim.

Plaintiff

Until now, roads that can enter the land of this case have not been constructed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-4 evidence, purport of whole pleadings

2. In light of the location, current status, etc. of the instant land recognized by the evidence prior to the determination of whether to cancel the instant sales contract, the phrase “current roads” as indicated in the instant sales contract refers to access roads to the instant land, and the meaning of the phrase “making the current status” means that the Plaintiff, etc. puts sand to two truck portion of which the former has accumulated in the existing roads. However, the Plaintiff, etc. argues that there is no evidence supporting such assertion, as well as the assertion contrary to the explicit meaning of the phrase, is acceptable.