1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

In light of the principle of trust and good faith, the defendant has a duty to notify the plaintiffs of the land that is restricted in the construction of housing by the existence of the waterway of this case. However, since the defendant committed a tort by deceiving the plaintiffs by failing to notify it, it is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused by the tort.

Plaintiff A 612,604, 78, 400, 300,233,088 won, Plaintiff B 538,321,90,865 won, 12,064,00 won, 222,926,865 won, 364,000 won, 22,926,864,604/600, 604/700 of the purchase price of the pertinent land x 44,64,920 won, 220,000 won, 33,424,920, 420, 420 won, 424, 920 won, 13,000 won, 625, 367, 27636, 375, 267, 367, 2765, 367, 2765, 276, 3767, 3767, 37, 37

3. Determination

A. In light of the following facts and circumstances, the determination of Gap evidence Nos. 6-4, Eul evidence Nos. 6-2, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4 through 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant performed incomplete obligations due to the lack of objective character and performance expected in light of the trade common sense because the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone cannot construct housing in each of the relevant parts of the housing complex of this case, which the plaintiffs sold in lots, or the lack of the nature of the parties scheduled or guaranteed, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, in full view of the following facts and circumstances admitted by the aforementioned evidence, the following facts and circumstances are considered.