1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 45 million for each Plaintiff; and (b) 5% per annum from March 11, 2015 to February 5, 2016 for each Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is an executor of the Seo-gu Seoul Building (hereinafter “C Building”) in Gwangju (hereinafter “C Building”).

B. On March 11, 2015, between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, with respect to Plaintiff B-5 stories, Plaintiff B concluded each sales contract with respect to Plaintiff B-5 stories, and Plaintiff B concluded each sales contract with respect to Plaintiff B-3 stories A-29 stories (hereinafter “each sales contract of this case”).

C. According to each of the instant sales contracts, the Plaintiffs transferred the purchase price of KRW 45 million on March 11, 2015 to the Defendant’s account. However, the Plaintiffs did not move into the account even until the date exceeding three months from the end of May 2015, which is the scheduled date for occupancy.

Accordingly, on September 3, 2015, Plaintiff A sent a content-certified mail that contains the contents of the cancellation of the instant sales contract on the grounds of the delay in the scheduled occupancy date. On September 4, 2015, Plaintiff B sent the instant sales contract to the Defendant on September 1, 2015, and Plaintiff B sent the content-certified mail that contains the contents of the cancellation of the instant sales contract on the grounds of the delay in the scheduled occupancy date, and Plaintiff B sent the instant sales contract to the Defendant on September 2, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in the evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 3, Gap's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 3, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the plaintiffs' claim for each of the sales contracts of this case was cancelled as it was delayed for more than 3 months from the scheduled date of occupancy due to the reasons attributable to the defendant, the defendant is obligated to pay compensation for delay of 45 million won for each of the sales proceeds received from the plaintiffs and 14.58% per annum under Article 2 (2) and (4) of the sales contract of this case (hereinafter "the sales contract of this case") and compensation for delay of 10% per annum under Article 4 (2) of the contract and compensation for delay of 10% per annum.

B. It was true that the defendant's assertion did not move into the scheduled date of occupancy under each of the sales contracts of this case, but at the time of entering into each of the sales contracts of this case with regard to damages arising from the cancellation of each of the sales contracts.