1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The defendant of the purport of the claim shall be the plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 18, 2014, the Plaintiffs concluded a sales contract to purchase each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) from the Defendant for KRW 4,356,80,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. As to the payment date of the purchase price, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant agreed that KRW 1,670,000,000 of the intermediate payment, the intermediate payment of KRW 1,670,000,000, until August 18, 2014 when entering into a contract, and the remainder of KRW 2,256,80,000,00 shall be paid up to November 17, 2014; however, in lieu of the intermediate payment of the secured debt of the right to collateral security (right to collateral security (right to collateral security Co., Ltd., Ltd.), which was created on the instant land, the Plaintiffs, who were the purchaser, received at the same time with the contract and pay KRW 20,00,000 for the interest for the period of three months from the date of the remainder payment.

C. In addition, in the instant sales contract, the other party may notify the seller or the buyer in writing and cancel the contract according to the buyer’s default, based on the compensation for damages, and the seller may not cancel the contract by contract deposit.

The Plaintiffs paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 430,000,000 and the interest on the said loan amount of KRW 20,000,000 on the date of conclusion of the instant sales contract.

E. However, on October 29, 2014, the Plaintiffs did not accept the above loans, and the Defendant sent a peremptory notice to the Plaintiff C on October 31, 2014, stating that the procedures for acquiring bank loans under the instant sales contract were fulfilled by November 7, 2014.

F. Despite the above peremptory notice, the Plaintiffs found the Defendant before the outstanding payment date without fulfilling the procedure for accepting the obligation of loans and demanded the Defendant to withdraw the provisional seizure for the real estate owned by D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D Co., Ltd.”), but the Defendant rejected the provisional seizure on the ground that the said provisional seizure was irrelevant to the instant sales contract.