A. 1) The Plaintiff and Defendant D were married on June 18, 2014, but completed the report of divorce on May 17, 2016, and Defendant B and C are the parents of Defendant D. (2) Defendant B entered into the following agreements with the Plaintiff on May 16, 2016 (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

In other words, Defendant B borrowed KRW 50,00,00 from the Plaintiff on the condition of the divorce between the Plaintiff and Defendant D, but Defendant B purchased and sold E Apartment F (hereinafter “instant apartment”) at the time of the so-called “the most soon after March 2018, and paid the said money to the Plaintiff upon the completion of the conclusion of the sales contract.

In addition, Defendant C guaranteed Defendant C’s obligation to the Plaintiff on the same day.

3) Defendant B did not dispose of the instant real estate by March 27, 2020, which was around the closing date of the instant pleadings. [The purport of the entire pleadings is as follows: (a) there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition; (b) there is no entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, and 13;

B. 1) The purport of the parties’ assertion is that the Plaintiff was notified of the scheduled auction execution plan due to the Defendants’ failure to repay the money borrowed from the instant apartment as collateral, and that the registration of seizure was completed on May 14, 2019 with the right-holder of the instant apartment, even before the closing date of pleadings, the period during which the instant apartment was due to the occurrence of an objective impossibility of the sale of the instant apartment. Accordingly, the Defendants asserted that, as seen earlier, the sale of the instant apartment does not become objectively impossible solely on the ground that the registration of seizure was completed in the instant apartment, the Defendant B purchased the instant apartment as soon as possible and completed the sales contract.