1. The Defendant’s KRW 55,497,520 to Plaintiff A, KRW 60,660,080 to Plaintiff B, and each of them from November 30, 2016.

Ⅰ. The facts following the premise of the determination are found to be either a dispute or the purport of the entire pleadings, other than each macroscopic evidence.

1. The plaintiffs purchased each of the above shopping malls (hereinafter referred to as the "instant shopping mall") from the defendant in Yangsan City D-si, and the specific terms of the sales contract are as follows.

[A. hereinafter the sale contract in this case]. A.

Plaintiff

A A A

B. Plaintiff B B B

2. The main parts of the sales contract are as follows:

(A) “A” is the Defendant, “B”, and “B”. Article 6 (Transfer of Ownership) and Article 12 (other and personal matters)

3. As a result of the completion of a commercial building, the aggregate building register was prepared on August 26, 2016.

In comparison with the sales contract of this case, the area of "the section for common use" was identical, while the area of the section for common use was registered as 54.5413 square meters in total.

It is no less than 8.577m2 compared to the sales contract.

[A] On September 13, 2016, immediately after the date of April 4, 2016, the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the Defendant’s future with respect to the instant commercial building. At this time, the ownership ownership ratio was reduced by 3.3189 square meters compared to the instant sales contract, or registered as 11.1741 square meters.

[4] 5. The reason why the ratio of common area and site ownership of the commercial building of this case was reduced was due to changes in the size of the building in the process of construction and construction completion of the commercial building.

[Defendant E. 6. The Defendant, including the Plaintiffs, determined and notified the balance payment date to the buyer including the Plaintiffs as “from September 19, 2016 to September 23, 2016,” and requested that the Defendant enter the sales contract form and seal before paying the balance to the office.”

[Witness E] On September 23, 2016, the Plaintiffs visited the Defendant’s office by visiting the instant sales contract and seal on September 23, 2016.

At this point, the defendant's employees E, etc. are the plaintiffs in the permission process.