1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs' second preliminary claims added at the trial are dismissed.

3...

1. Facts constituting the premise of the dispute

A. The Plaintiffs requested a licensed real estate agent D to sell and purchase an apartment E-dong 915 Dong 103 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and the Defendant, as a broker, remitted KRW 2 million to the Plaintiffs on June 8, 2017, and the Plaintiffs and the Defendant agreed to prepare a sales contract on June 13, 2017.

B. On June 23, 2017, Plaintiff A concluded a sales contract to purchase KRW 503, 1401, 287,000, and KRW 287,000,00, Ei-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu.

C. However, on July 7, 2017, where the Defendant did not pay down payment, the Plaintiff A notified the Defendant of the cancellation of the sales contract, as the Defendant did not perform contractual obligations, such as the payment of the purchase price.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, Gap 4-1, Gap 6 and 7 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A. On June 8, 2017, between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, as the primary cause of the claim, concluded an agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant to sell the instant apartment at KRW 260 million (2 million out of the contract deposit of KRW 22 million, and the remainder of KRW 20 million was paid on the date of the preparation of the sales contract, the remainder is paid on the end of June 2017, and the delivery of an apartment by June 15, 2017) with a customs contract having the amount equivalent to the down payment as a penalty.

However, since the contract of this case was terminated because the defendant did not pay the purchase price, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining penalty of 20 million won to the plaintiffs and delay damages.

B. The Defendant did not pay the purchase price to the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Plaintiff A borrowed KRW 200 million as a loan for apartment mortgage and KRW 58 million as a credit loan in order to pay the remaining purchase price of the newly purchased F apartment.

Therefore, the plaintiffs suffered losses that should be additionally borne by the interest on the loans calculated as follows: