1. Defendant D and E jointly share KRW 148,562,597 against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant from November 19, 2015.

1. The basic facts are the buyers of I apartment, 105, 305, 105, 305, 105 (the exclusive residential area, 108.7127m, hereinafter referred to as "the apartment of this case") in the Gangnam-gu Seoul H Housing District.

On October 22, 2014, Defendant G entered into an apartment sale contract with Defendant D with the content that the sales contract amount of KRW 83,600,00,00 and that of KRW 2,619,600 in balcony expansion contract amount to be paid by Defendant G on behalf of Defendant G (hereinafter “the first sale contract”). Defendant G transferred KRW 216,21,600, including the first sale contract amount of KRW 130,000,000, in total, to Defendant D with the sales right amount of KRW 130,000,000. Defendant G entered into an apartment sale contract with Defendant D on May 13, 2015 (hereinafter “the second sale contract”).

The Plaintiff acquired the sales contract amounting to KRW 83,600,000, and KRW 2,619,600 for balcony expansion contract amounting to KRW 2,60,000 paid by Defendant G as it is and additionally paid KRW 30,000,000 for the first purchase right of KRW 130,000 for the first purchase right of KRW 160,000 paid by Defendant G as sales right premium.

(A) On November 19, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 16.6 million under the name of Defendant D’s capital gains tax through J, which is the husband of Defendant F. After that, the Plaintiff drafted a real estate sales contract directly with Defendant D as of October 25, 2015, when one year has elapsed since the period of prohibition of resale of the right to sell in lots.

(A) The name of the buyer was changed to that of the Plaintiff. (B) On November 19, 2015, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s wife, and the Defendant D, drafted a written oath to the effect that “In the event of termination of the contract, cancellation of the winning right and the revocation of the contract, the winning right and the cancellation of the contract, and all of the responsibilities therefrom, are borne by the principal,” which is the execution company of the apartment of this case.

On April 8, 2016, 2016, the executive company of the Republic of Korea, v. D. S. D.