1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff owns each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).

B. On June 5, 2014, the Plaintiff sold each of the instant real estate to the Defendants at KRW 1.766 billion, but the price is paid in full by August 31, 2014 without down payment and intermediate payment, and the transfer of ownership registration entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendants in view of the standards for reduction and exemption of acquisition tax and registration tax of the Defendants, with the agreement to be completed in the future (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

C. Since then, the Defendants possessed each of the instant real estate by transferring the instant real estate production facilities, etc. to another building.

However, the Defendants did not fully pay the purchase price until August 31, 2014. Accordingly, the Plaintiff had extended the payment date by September 15, 2014, but the Defendants did not pay the price up to that time.

【Facts without dispute over the ground for recognition, entries in Gap's evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the facts found in the instant sales contract, inasmuch as the period for the registration of ownership transfer of each of the instant real estate was agreed upon by considering the Defendant’s acquisition tax and registration tax reduction and exemption criteria, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to perform the obligation to pay the purchase price in preference to the Plaintiff’s obligation to transfer ownership. Meanwhile, the Defendant’s failure to pay the purchase price by the payment date is recognized as above, and thus, the instant sales contract was lawfully rescinded until June 8, 2015, which included the purport that the Plaintiff would cancel the instant sales contract on the ground that the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the purchase price was served on the Defendants.

Therefore, the Defendants are therefore.