1. On September 14, 2015, which was concluded between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, the Seo-gu Daejeon District Court concluded on September 14, 2015, concluded on November 23, 2015.

On July 21, 2015, E entered into a sales contract with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation and the Seo-gu Daejeon District Land and Housing Corporation for 1,458.40 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

On July 22, 2015, the Plaintiffs succeeded to the rights and obligations under the sales contract for the instant land (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) from E.

On September 14, 2015, the Plaintiffs sold the instant right to sell to the Defendant and the Korea Land and Housing Corporation KRW 559.94 million (200 million for the premium of KRW 359.9 billion paid to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation), but the Defendant agreed to pay the down payment of KRW 100 million and KRW 50 million for the first part payment on September 14, 2015, and pay the remainder of KRW 499.94 billion (200 million for the second part payment of KRW 29.9 billion for the premium of KRW 29.94 billion) on October 14, 2015, and to succeed to the obligation of the Korea Land and Housing Corporation to pay the remainder of KRW 3.239 billion for the remainder.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On September 14, 2015, the Defendant paid the Plaintiffs a sum of KRW 1,50,000,000 for down payment and the first intermediate payment, and on October 14, 2015, the Plaintiffs paid KRW 29,940,000 for the second intermediate payment to the Plaintiffs, which is the remainder date, and refused to pay the remainder of KRW 200,000,000 for the premium.

On November 16, 2015, the Plaintiffs deposited KRW 350,9940,000 in total with the beneficiary of the deposited goods as the Defendant, and submitted the instant complaint containing the contents of cancelling the instant sales contract on the grounds of delay of performance.

The duplicate of the instant complaint was served on November 23, 2015 on the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including a serial number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant refuses to pay KRW 200 million premium to the plaintiffs. Thus, barring any other circumstance, the sales contract of this case, which contains the expression of intent of cancellation, was lawfully rescinded on November 23, 2015, on which the duplicate of the complaint of this case was delivered to the defendant.

The defendant's argument is related.