1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On January 13, 2016, the Plaintiffs concluded a sales contract with E, who is the Defendant’s father’s agent, to purchase the instant real estate owned by the Defendant from the Defendant for KRW 50,700,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. The Plaintiffs, on the date of the contract, remitted the down payment of KRW 5,000,000 and intermediate payment of KRW 5,000,000, total of KRW 10,000,000 to E’s foreign exchange bank account, and remitted the remainder of KRW 40,700,000 to E’s account on February 29, 2016.

C. Meanwhile, the instant sales contract was concluded with the Plaintiff’s husband as a broker of F, a licensed real estate agent, and the Defendant was residing in the United States at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract.

E referred to that the Defendant entered into the instant sales contract by telephone conversations after the conclusion of the instant sales contract, but the Defendant opposed to the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and around February 2016, E sent a content-certified mail to the Plaintiffs that revoked the instant sales contract.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements in Gap's 1, 3 (including Ga number), 4, 6, 19 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' claim grounds

A. Since the defendant grants E a legitimate authority to conclude the sales contract of this case with respect to the real estate, the sales contract of this case is effective for the defendant who is the principal, and therefore, the defendant is liable to perform the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer to the plaintiffs.

B. Even if the Defendant did not grant the right to representation concerning the conclusion of the instant sales contract to E, the Defendant: (a) granted the right to represent the management and disposal of the Defendant’s property under the name of E; and (b) the Plaintiff believed that E had the right to representation to conclude the instant sales contract; and (c) there are reasonable grounds to believe such right, the Defendant is an expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act.