1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are several buyers who purchased each unit of the Class E buildings (hereinafter “instant commercial buildings”) and the Defendant is the head of F (Sales Agency: Co., Ltd.) who is the sales agent of the instant commercial buildings.

B. The Plaintiffs, via the Defendant, entered into a contract with the managing company and the trustee H Co., Ltd., the truster limited liability company I, the contractor J Co., Ltd., and the instant commercial building with the following terms:

(2) Each contract for sale in lots concluded by the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "each contract for sale in lots of this case") . [Grounds for recognition] . The respective statements in Gap's Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings as well as the purport of the whole pleadings as to the sales price A of the object of the contract for the plaintiff as of June 12, 2015 No. 361,921,00 of the underground floor No. 361,921,00 of the total sales price of the object of the contract for the plaintiff as of June 6, 2015, No. 422,293,00 of the underground floor M No. 429,000 of the 4th, Jan. 24, 2017

2. The plaintiffs alleged that they would resell the commercial buildings of this case by deceiving them that they would sell the commercial buildings of this case, and they concluded each of the sales contracts of this case, but the defendant did not resell them.

Since the Plaintiffs failed to pay the sales price in full, and each of the instant sales contracts was cancelled, they were subject to confiscation of the down payment and suffered damages from the payment of the amount of the intermediate payment loan interest, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for the amount equivalent to the above damages.

3. In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant entices the Plaintiffs to “be sold in lots,” and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. In light of the following circumstances, the evidence presented by the Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant, “to be sold in lots,” and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's claim premised on the defendant's deception.

Plaintiff

A and B enter into each contract for the sale of this case and "the counselor in charge of the sale".