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

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiffs entered into a contract for the purchase of an apartment in the "subject matter of contract" column in attached Form 2 (hereinafter referred to as the "sale contract in this case"), among the Rochidi Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company") located in Yongsan-gu Qu apartment (total 923 households; hereinafter referred to as the "total apartment of this case") in the status of the contract execution by the plaintiff in attached Form 2, and paid to the non-party company the money stated in the "paid amount" column in the status of the contract execution by the plaintiff in attached Form 2. Around that time, the contract for the construction of balcony expansion and the construction of balcony to the non-party company was entered into and paid to the non-party company the money stated in the "balcon down payment" column in the status of the contract execution by the plaintiff in attached Form 2.

B. On March 26, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the non-party company as Seoul Central District Court 2009Gahap34172 against "the non-party company did not notify the fact that the military shooting range exists in the root of the entire apartment of this case at the time of the instant sales contract. Thus, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit claiming the return of the sale price and the construction contract, claiming that "the sales contract of this case and the balcony expansion and the construction contract are revoked on the grounds of deception by breach or omission of duty of disclosure." The above court accepted the plaintiffs' claim on August 25, 2010, and the above court declared that the non-party company appealed as Seoul High Court 2010Na90175, but the appeal was dismissed on April 21, 2011, and the above judgment became final and conclusive at that time.

C. On February 16, 2009, before the registration of the preservation of ownership on the entire apartment of this case was completed, the Plaintiffs: (a) termination of the trust on each of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 real estate list held by the non-party company against the Korea Housing Guarantee Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the entire apartment site of this case”), and reversion of trust property.