1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. On October 19, 2016, the key points of the Plaintiffs’ assertion concluded a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Land and its ground buildings owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the purchase price of KRW 178 million, and paid the down payment of KRW 180 million on the date of the contract.

On October 25, 2016, before the date of the intermediate payment payment, the defendant found the contract without notice to the office of the plaintiffs, and notified the contract of this case unilaterally and notified the contract of this case and returned to 180,000 won of the down payment.

After that, in order to verify the grounds for the Defendant’s rescission, the Plaintiffs had multiple contacts with the Defendant, but did not contact, and on November 30, 2016, made clear that there was a cause attributable to the Defendant, and served the Defendant with content-certified mail claiming the cancellation of the instant sales contract and the penalty equivalent to the amount of the down payment under the instant sales contract.

However, since the defendant still does not pay a penalty of KRW 180,000,000, the defendant is obligated to pay each of the plaintiffs 90,000 won and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. The judgment on the Plaintiff B’s claim is recognized as having indicated “A and one other” in the buyer column of the instant sales contract (Evidence No. 1), but it is insufficient to recognize that Plaintiff B was a party to the instant sales contract on the sole basis of these facts, the statement of evidence No. 1 and No. 8 (including each number), and witness E’s testimony, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Thus, Plaintiff B’s assertion is without merit without any need to further examine.

B. In order for the Plaintiff’s claim to be recognized as a judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim, the validity of the instant sales contract should be premised. In full view of the Plaintiff’s partial description of evidence No. 7, Eul’s statement of evidence No. 1, witness F’s testimony, and witness E’s partial testimony, the instant sales contract is concluded.