1. The defendant shall pay each of the plaintiffs stated in the separate sheet "Plaintiff" as stated in the separate sheet, and the same list "amount paid" as stated.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs purchased from the Defendant, both implementer and implementing trustee, and concluded a sales contract as follows (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant sales contract”). The instant sales contract signed and sealed the sales contract as follows (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant sales contract”). H & Si Corporation 1 also signed and sealed the instant sales contract.

The Plaintiffs paid each down payment and intermediate payment to the Defendant in the same list “payment date” as indicated on each payment date.

B. The instant officetel was completed on December 28, 2018 and obtained approval for use, and began to move from January 12, 2019.

C. On January 3, 2018, Plaintiff A and D notified the Defendant of the cancellation of the instant sales contract pursuant to Article 5(3) of the instant sales contract on the ground that the occupancy was delayed even after three months elapsed from August 10, 2018, which was the scheduled date for occupancy of the instant officetel, on the 10th of the same month.

Meanwhile, Article 5(3) of the instant sales contract provides that “If the occupancy is delayed for more than three months than the originally scheduled price due to a cause attributable to the Defendant (Provided, That if the occupancy is delayed due to force majeure such as natural disasters or administrative orders unrelated to the Defendant’s fault, etc., it shall not be demanded to cancel the sales contract in this case). When the contract is terminated, the Defendant shall pay 10% of the total supply price to the Plaintiffs as penalty.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The 1st Plaintiffs’ assertion was found that the 1st Plaintiffs’ assertion failed to conduct a sufficient geological survey in advance, and that the 1st Plaintiffs’ assertion was found.