1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Defendant is a corporation established pursuant to Article 76 of the Housing Act in order to protect the policyholders of housing units, promote housing construction, and contribute to improving the housing welfare of the people by providing various guarantees for housing construction. 2) The F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) is the implementer of the new construction project of H apartment units (hereinafter “instant apartment units”) implemented on the 2 lots outside Busan Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City, and the I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”) is the starting project of the said new construction project.

B. On December 1, 2006, the Defendant and F enter into a contract for the guarantee of parcelling-out of housing (the number of guarantee: J. hereinafter “instant parcelling-out guarantee contract”) stipulated on November 30, 2006 as the date of commencement from the date of registration of preservation of ownership (including the usage inspection) from the date of approval for the announcement of invitation of applicants for the guarantee period to the date of registration of preservation of ownership (including the usage inspection) with respect to the newly built construction of the instant apartment on December 1, 2006.

(2) The main content of the instant sales guarantee agreement is that the Defendant is liable for the payment of the down payment and the intermediate payment paid by the buyer in the event that the principal debtor becomes unable to execute the sales contract due to the security accident pursuant to Article 106(1)1(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act.

3) Terms and conditions of the instant parcelling-out guarantee agreement attached to the instant parcelling-out guarantee agreement (hereinafter “instant parcelling-out guarantee agreement”).

(C) The main contents of the sales contract are as shown in the annexed sheet. (C) The plaintiffs concluded a sales contract with F to sell each unit of the apartment of this case (hereinafter the plaintiffs referred to as the "sale contract of this case") as shown in the following table with F, respectively.

On February 208, 2008, Plaintiff A 1, the supply value of the unit of apartment units as of the date of the contract of the Plaintiffs, Plaintiff A, 415 Dong 302 Dong 1,312,00.