1. The plaintiffs' appeals and the claims added to the trial are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for any modification or addition as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In the case of the first instance judgment No. 7 of the part to be corrected or added, the term “instant case” shall be added to the following.

Part 11, part 13 of the judgment of the first instance is "(C)", part 11 is "ma", part 22 of the 11th part is "ma", part 12 is "ma", part 4 of the 12th part is "F" and part 8 of the 12th part is "F".

The following judgments shall be added to the 14th judgment of the first instance.

5. Claiming consolation money.

A. The Plaintiffs asserted that the instant multi-studio provision or the instant remodeling work is legitimate due to the Defendant’s deception, and paid the sales price in full without securing the instant multi-studio, and that the multi-studio restoration work was also conducted from May 2015 to December 31, 2014, and the prosecutor of the Suwon-dong Police Station issued a disposition of suspension of indictment against the violation of the Parking Lot Act from the prosecutor of the Suwon-dong District Prosecutors’ Office on December 31, 2014. As such, the Plaintiffs suffered mental damage, and the Defendant is obliged to pay five million won consolation money per household to the Plaintiffs.

B. In general, in a case where a property right is infringed due to a tort of another person, the mental suffering shall be deemed to have been recovered from the compensation for the property damage unless there are special circumstances, and in a case where a property damage is not recoverable from the compensation for the property damage, the consolation money may be recognized.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da22912 delivered on July 25, 2003, etc.). The Defendant did not notify the fact that the agreement to provide the mudio was unlawful. The Defendant committed deception to the Defendant.

(2) In light of the principle of good faith.