1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Plaintiff B, on November 23, 201, 101, 2805 1,105,500,000 55,275,00 on November 25, 2011, Plaintiff A, on January 25, 201, 102 Dong 2105, 1,058,500,000 52,92,925,000 on November 25, 2011

A. The Plaintiffs concluded each contract to sell each of the relevant housing units (hereinafter “each of the instant apartment units”) recorded in the column of the object of parcelling-out in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yongsan-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant apartment units”) with the Defendant as the parcelling-out price on each of the relevant dates indicated in the table column of the table contract date below (hereinafter “each of the instant apartment units”). The Plaintiffs paid each of the corresponding amounts stated in the column of the down payment to the Defendant on each contract date as the down payment.

B. On October 13, 2014, the Plaintiffs submitted to this court an application for conciliation containing a declaration of intent to cancel each of the instant sales contracts as set out in the following 2, and the duplicate of the application for conciliation reached the Defendant on October 23, 2014.

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

2. The plaintiffs asserted that the special view view in the direction D is secured from each apartment unit of this case from the defendant, and concluded each sales contract of this case. However, unlike the defendant's explanation, unlike the defendant's explanation, the defendant's construction of the apartment unit of this case was actually constructed with a 31th floor size in front of the residential building of this case, and the view of D in each apartment unit of this case was entirely not secured.

This constitutes a reason that the purpose of the contract can not be achieved, and thus the contract for each of the instant case is cancelled through the service of a duplicate of the application for conciliation.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to return the down payment already received to each of the plaintiffs.

3. Each of the certificates Nos. 5, 6, and 7, which the defendant purchased at the time of each of the sales contracts in this case.