1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: 34 pages 34 of the judgment of the court of first instance: “Plaintiff C acquired KRW 174,900,00 from the Defendant on September 1, 2014 the sale price of KRW 174,90,00 among the hotel of this case was sold from the Defendant on September 1, 2014; hereinafter “Plaintiff D purchased KRW 2204 out of the hotel of this case from the Defendant on September 1, 2014, and purchased KRW 174,90,000 from the Defendant on September 1, 201; hereinafter “Additional Decision 2.0” is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of “Additional Decision 2.” as to the assertion added by the Plaintiffs to this court. Accordingly

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiffs asserted that the sales contract of this case was cancelled through a preparatory document dated April 9, 2018, because they were erroneous that the amount equivalent to 67% of the sales price is eligible to receive a secured loan through a bank designated by the Defendant, which constitutes motive mistake.

In order to cancel a juristic act on the ground that the motive mistake falls under an error in the important part of the contents of the juristic act, the motive should be indicated to the other party as the content of the declaration of intent, and it should be recognized that it is the content of the juristic act in interpretation

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da26210 delivered on September 30, 1997, etc.). The first instance court witness I A who worked in the team system of a stock company, one of the instant hotel sales and advertising agents, and the Defendant and bank employees, unless there are special circumstances such as bad credit standing, are available for a secured loan regarding the amount equivalent to 65 to 75% of the sales price. Based on this, Gap evidence was prepared and used for business, and the sales office was found to the same effect.

Although Gap evidence No. 7 was not a regular advertisement of the hotel of this case, the issue was raised by the defendant's employee while entering the sales office of this case.