A. The Defendant is the owner of 1/3 shares among the 29,878 square meters of land in Gyeyang-gu, Soyang-gu, Yangyang-si and 11/15 shares among D previous 1,178 square meters.

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant lands”) B.

On November 1, 2011, the Plaintiff purchased shares of 1/15 of the total amount of 29,878 square meters in Soyang-gu C Forest in Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu (around 603 square meters), and KRW 11/75 of the total amount of 11,78 square meters before D ( approximately KRW 52 square meters) from the Defendant. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on the condition that the part of the specific land, such as the part of the contract amount, the intermediate payment of KRW 50 million, and the remainder of KRW 150,000,000,000,000) shall be transferred in installments, and at the same time, the Plaintiff paid the remainder to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

C. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 100 million on the date of conclusion of the instant sales contract, and the intermediate payment of KRW 50 million on the following day.

After that, each land of this case was not partitioned until now, and the plaintiff was not entitled to transfer ownership of the object of the sales contract of this case.

E. On June 22, 2018, the Plaintiff paid the remainder of the instant sales contract to the Defendant KRW 150 million.

[Ground of recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including partial number of heading; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff's assertion that "the defendant was unable to consult with other co-owners and thus the division of each of the lands of this case does not proceed for a long time, and the defendant was entitled to first transfer co-ownership shares corresponding to the object of the contract of this case and paid the balance."

On the other hand, the defendant merely denies the plaintiff's claim formally, and did not provide any explanation as to the situation in which each land of this case was divided, unlike the content of the sales contract of this case.