1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are the buyers who purchased the “B apartment house” in the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from around 2008 to 2010, or those who acquired the right to sell from them.

Dlimz Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Dlimz”) is a contractor who newly constructed and sold the apartment of this case, and new East Asian Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “new Eastdong Construction”) is a new contractor who newly built the apartment of this case.

The scheduled date of occupancy: Article 2 (Cancellation of Contracts) of the Act on December 2010 (if any change is made in a size according to the process), the plaintiffs may cancel this contract if they are unable to move into within three months from the scheduled date of occupancy due to the reasons attributable to the defendant's drones.

When this contract is terminated on the grounds falling under Article 3 (Penalty) (3), dratts shall pay the plaintiffs 10% of the total amount of the supply price as penalty.

B. Of the sales contract for the apartment of this case between the plaintiffs and Dlimz (hereinafter "the sales contract of this case"), the contents related to this case are as follows.

C. On March 31, 201, on the condition that “the implementation plan is authorized, compliance with the terms and conditions of consultation at the time of authorization of the implementation plan, separate consultation on the sewage pipe project, and prompt measures for defects in construction, such as the occupant’s prior visit pointed out,” etc., on the condition that the ancient city approved the inspection for each building’s use of the instant apartment.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

1. The Plaintiffs asserted against Dlimz, etc. that “The apartment of this case was not in a state of moving into the apartment after March 31, 2011. The Plaintiffs asserted that the sales contract was cancelled due to the nonperformance of Dlimz pursuant to Article 2(3) of the instant sales contract, and that “The Plaintiffs seek the return of the down payment and intermediate payment and the payment of penalty pursuant to Article 3(2) of the instant sales contract.”