1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are all dismissed.

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

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

The Plaintiffs concluded a sales contract with the Defendant for D of the 16th ground floor D (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”) located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”).

Plaintiff

A down payment for the sale price in lots at a divided store on May 28, 201, A 152,752,600 square meters of 37.420 square meters of 37.420 square meters on May 28, 2013, A 119,422,600 square meters of 8th floor H029.240 square meters on May 28, 2013, 2013, B KRW 130,621,700,000 square meters of 8th floor on July 20, 2013, B 130,884,520 square meters of H020 31.90 square meters on July 8, 2013.

B. As to the above H021 shop, Plaintiff A paid KRW 53,009,240 in total as down payment and part of intermediate payment, and KRW 55,860,840 in total as to the above H022 as down payment and part of intermediate payment, and Plaintiff B paid down payment 26,124,340 in total to the Defendant as to the above H020.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. (1) With respect to the assertion that the sale contract in this case is null and void based on the original impossibility, each of the stores in this case cannot be the object of sectional ownership because of its structural and functional independence, and the registration made therefor is null and void. Thus, the sale contract in this case is null and void as a contract, the implementation of which is impossible.

(2) If part of one building can be the object of sectional ownership, it must be independent from other parts due to its structural structure or use, and there may be differences in the strictness of structural independence by the situation of its use or use. However, the structural independence is required because it is necessary to clarify the scope of physical control over the object which mainly becomes the object of ownership. Thus, if it is impossible to determine the scope of the object of sectional ownership by structural division, it cannot be said that the structural independence exists.

On the other hand, Article 1-2 of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter "the Act") is divided into several parts in structure among one building.