1. The Defendant each of the Plaintiffs’ KRW 22,50,000 and each of them shall be 5% per annum from October 23, 2018 to August 14, 2020.

1. Chief;

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiffs and the Defendant on October 22, 2018, the Daegu-gu Seo-gu D, E, F Land, and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

A) Sales contract for the purchase price of KRW 1,325,00,000, down payment of KRW 135,000,000, intermediate payment of KRW 200,000,000, remainder payment of KRW 990,00,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

(2) At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Defendant paid KRW 135,00,000 to the Plaintiffs on October 23, 2018, which is the following day of the contract, and issued and delivered a cash storage certificate to the Plaintiffs regarding the said contract amount.

3) After entering into the instant sales contract, the Defendant did not receive telephone calls from the Plaintiffs, and did not perform the instant sales contract without proof. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs notified the Defendant that the instant sales contract will be rescinded due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation on November 6, 2018. (4) Since the Plaintiffs believed that the instant sales contract will be performed by the Defendant, and the Defendant spent a considerable amount of expenses, such as formulating a plan to purchase commercial buildings and studio, etc., the Defendant is obliged to pay the amount equivalent to the down payment to the Plaintiffs due to nonperformance of obligation pursuant to Article 6 of the instant sales contract.

B. The defendant's assertion that the contract of this case was concluded with the plaintiffs. However, the amount equivalent to the down payment, which is the estimated amount of damages for non-performance, is excessive considering the following circumstances: (a) the process of conclusion of the contract of this case; (b) the preparation of a cash storage certificate for the payment of down payment; and (c) the circumstances that expressed the intention of cancellation

2. Determination:

A. The judgment of the defendant on the cancellation of the contract of this case recognizes the fact that the defendant did not perform the obligations under the contract of this case, and according to the purport of Gap evidence and the entire pleadings, according to the plaintiffs' intention of cancellation.