1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. On August 28, 2017, the Seoul Central District Court received on real estate stated in the attached list.

In light of the following facts: (a) on August 28, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on August 28, 2017 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); (b) on August 28, 2017, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with the Defendant on August 28, 2017 as Seoul Central District Court No. 164824, Aug. 28, 2017; and (c) around that time, the Plaintiff delivered the instant real estate to the Defendant on August 28, 2017; and (d) the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the purchase price set forth in the instant sales contract; and (e) the Plaintiff reached the Defendant on April 24, 2018, a duplicate of the complaint indicating the rescission of the instant sales contract on the grounds that the Defendant was unpaid.

According to the above facts, since the sales contract of this case was lawfully rescinded, the defendant is obligated to complete the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration of this case's real estate and deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff due to restitution following the cancellation of the sales contract

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the cancellation of the instant sales contract is unlawful on the grounds that the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 1,170,000,000 in the name of C bank, and the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 230,000,000 in the title of D was completed, respectively. The Plaintiff’s obligation to cancel the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage and the Defendant’s obligation to pay the purchase-price are related to the simultaneous implementation. However, the Plaintiff did not provide the performance for the cancellation of the said establishment registration.

However, according to the evidence No. 1, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into the sales contract of this case, and they have the right to collateral security established on the real estate of this case.