1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) On May 13, 2016, Plaintiff A, the Defendant’s agent, and the E forest land E 2,232 square meters, F forest land 1,145 square meters, and G field 4,181 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(2) Of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with D, the Defendant’s agent on June 27, 2016, to purchase a 660 square meters of the provisionally partitioned area and paid KRW 10 million as down payment. On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff B entered into a contract with D to purchase a 660 square meters of the provisionally partitioned area among the instant real estate, and paid KRW 20 million as down payment (hereinafter “each of the instant sales contract”).

(2) Each of the instant sales contracts conditioned the completion of civil engineering works by the date of the remainder payment, but the Defendant failed to perform the said agreements, and the Plaintiffs notified the Defendant of the rescission of each of the instant sales contracts.

3) Although D did not indicate that it was an act on behalf of the Defendant as the agent of the Defendant, it was in a partnership relationship with the Defendant, and since the Defendant was in charge of the transaction of the instant real estate to D, the effect of D pursuant to Article 48 of the Commercial Act extends to the Defendant, a member of the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, pursuant to the proviso to Article 115 of the Civil Act, since D was in a situation where D would enter into a sales contract as the Defendant’s representative, and thus, the effect of each of the instant sales contracts extends to the Defendant pursuant to the proviso to Article 115 of the Civil Act. Furthermore, the Defendant ratified each of the instant sales contracts in H and conciliation proceedings. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the down payment amount of KRW 20 million, a penalty of KRW 20 million, a penalty of KRW 20 million, a penalty of KRW 20 million, and damages for delay.

B. The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs 1 alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant and D were in a partnership relationship, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion on the premise that D and the defendant are in a partnership relationship is without merit.