1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 7, 11, and 12 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the witness D's testimony, and the whole purport of the pleading.

On February 19, 2008, the Plaintiff purchased from E one parcel G apartment 502 (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) out of the Seoul Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, for the sale price of KRW 360,000,000. On May 13, 2008, the Plaintiff occupied the instant real estate and has resided up to now.

B. After that, on December 8, 2008, the registration of provisional seizure with the claim amounting to 400,000,000 won by Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2008Kadan12933 on December 8, 2008, and on May 1, 2009, the provisional sale registration of provisional seizure with the above court 2009Kahap972 on May 1, 2009, was completed for the prohibition of provisional sale of real estate, the right to claim the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage based on a loan transaction agreement as the right to be preserved, and on September 19, 2012, the voluntary auction procedure was commenced

C. Meanwhile, on August 11, 2008, E died, and the Defendants are children of E.

On November 26, 2012, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the cancellation of the sales contract on the ground that the Defendants’ obligation to transfer ownership of the instant real estate was impossible, and that such notification reached the Defendants around that time.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the cause of the instant claim, and the Plaintiff paid 360,000,000 won to E by May 11, 2008. The execution of provisional attachment and provisional disposition on the instant real estate was carried out, and the procedures for voluntary auction by the mortgagee were carried out by the mortgagee. The Defendants became unable to perform their obligations of registration of ownership transfer inherited from E because they did not have sufficient means to cancel the registration of provisional attachment and provisional disposition and cancel the auction procedure. As such, the instant sales contract was lawfully cancelled by the Plaintiff’s declaration of cancellation on November 26, 2012 on the ground of the nonperformance of the above obligation, the Defendants were the Plaintiff.