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

A. D and E, for a Dong business, leased a dry field land, had been engaged in spawd cultivation, and D had been in charge of spawd sales, and there was a dispute between D and E.

B. On August 27, 2016, D had been engaged in the business with E on a third-party land outside Korea on a third-party land, 12,00 square meters, and 7,500 square meters on a third-party land outside Korea, as the Defendant and E, and the transferee are the Defendant, H (the representative director of the Plaintiff farming association) and B, and the transferor is the Defendant, H (the representative director of the Plaintiff farming association), and B. The transferor, D, and E, the transferor, discharge the obligation of KRW 182,00,000,000 that are borne by H and B, and the Defendant, the transferee, shall discharge the obligation, and the transferee, the Defendant, the Defendant, the Defendant, and the Defendant, the transferee, prepared a drilling transfer and takeover contract (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”).

C. On August 31, 2016, D and the Defendant decided to additionally transfer the 6,700 square meters of the 1stal field at Sejong-si, in consideration of the disease damage of the relevant dry field.

(F) The aggregate of the above F, G, and I, approximately 26,200 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant paddy field”). D.

After that, the representative director H of the Plaintiff Incorporated Partnership Co., Ltd.: (a) as to the above F and G dry field, the Plaintiffs were the seller; (b) as the buyer; (c) D was the buyer; (d) the sales price was KRW 182 million; and (e) the sales price was KRW 182 million (the remainder KRW 50 million; (c) the remainder payment date; and (d) the remainder payment date was September 30, 2016; and (e) obtained the Defendant’s seal and affixed it to D; and (e) D was distinguishable from the Defendant.

E. On September 12, 2016, the Defendant paid a down payment of KRW 50 million to the Plaintiffs under the instant sales contract.

F. After that, although D attempted to obtain a seal from E on the transfer and acquisition contract of this case, E did not have the right to refuse and obtain a seal, and the J, etc., who acquired the ship of this case from E and E, prevented the Defendant from taking the right to harvest from the ship of this case, and the Defendant did not harvest the ship from the ship of this case.