2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On June 5, 2009, the Plaintiff purchased 2/3 shares, and 1/3 shares (hereinafter referred to as “instant shares”) of the Plaintiff, respectively, in a voluntary auction procedure (Seoul District Court’s Incheon District Court’s Incheon District Court’s 2/3 shares, and F purchased 1/3 shares (hereinafter referred to as “instant shares”) against C forest 50,579 square meters (divided into C forest 485,595 square meters, D forest 1984 square meters, on January 7, 2011) in the Dong-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City prior to the subdivision.

B. F on September 30, 2009, on the part of the Defendant on September 29, 2009, the transfer registration for the instant shares was completed on September 29, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On September 2009, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the instant shares from F and agreed to sell them in KRW 100 million to the Defendant.

However, the Defendant only paid KRW 45 million out of the above purchase price of KRW 100 million ( KRW 20 million on September 29, 2009, KRW 10 million on November 2, 2009, KRW 15 million on November 3, 2009, and KRW 5 million on November 3, 2009) and did not pay the remainder of KRW 55 million.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the purchase price of KRW 55 million and the damages for delay from September 30, 2009, the share transfer registration for which was completed in the name of the Defendant.

B. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant paid KRW 100 million on September 29, 2009, KRW 10 million on November 2, 2009, KRW 15 million on November 3, 2009, KRW 15 million on November 3, 2009, and KRW 30 million on December 20, 2009, and paid all the purchase price under the above sales contract.

3. The fact that the purchase price for the instant shares is KRW 100 million is not disputed between the parties, and thus, we examine whether the Defendant fully pays KRW 100 million for the instant shares.

A. The authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established due to the lack of dispute over each Plaintiff’s stamp image on the 1, 2-2 land sales contract, receipt, and each Plaintiff’s stamp image.

The plaintiff asserts that G has forged each of the above documents, but it is not enough to recognize the above documents only with Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5-1, 2, and 6.