1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 27, 2016, the Plaintiffs entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for each of the following terms: (i) the Plaintiff’s 202, 301, 302, 401, 402, 501, and 502 rooms totaling KRW 828,000,000; and (ii) the Plaintiff’s 201 rooms totaling KRW 132,00,000 (total sum is KRW 96,00,000,000,000 for eight units; (ii) the eight units together consisting of the above eight units; and (iii) the individual units number is specified as the pertinent unit number).

(B) On November 2016, 2016, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant attached a description of confirmation of the object of brokerage to a guard room, and drafted a sales contract again on October 27, 2016, which was executed on October 27, 2016, retroactively from the date of preparation.

Gap evidence 2-1,

2. In addition, the sales contract of this case (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”).

(B) The instant sales contract concluded: (a) total of KRW 100 million; (b) total of KRW 170 million; and (c) total of KRW 690 million (payment date; November 28, 2016); and (b) total of KRW 100 million; and (b) deposit was included in the sales price and deducted from the remainder. (b) The Plaintiffs paid KRW 100 million total of the down payment on October 27, 2016 and the 28th of the same month (i.e., Plaintiff B14 million; (b) total of KRW 14 million to Plaintiff B14 million; and (c) total of KRW 150 million to Plaintiff B14,000, KRW 2500,000,000 in the instant sales contract (i.e., the intermediate payment of KRW 150 million; and (iv) total of KRW 201,216,200,000 in the instant case’s lease deposit.

Each of these nine square meters, nine square meters, 4.83 square meters, and 2.85 square meters without permission.

Plaintiff

On February 2, 2017, the 401 room, etc. of this case due to a report filed by A.