1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiffs' primary claims and the ancillary claims added by this court are all the conjunctive claims.

1. Judgment on the main claim

A. On September 20, 2010, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, the seller, on September 20, 2010, are the buyers of the forest land E, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-nam, and KRW 47,936 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest land”).

) The sales contract was concluded to sell the total purchase price of KRW 300 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

A) Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) out of KRW 300 million, KRW 128,571,428 to Plaintiff A according to the share ownership ratio by Plaintiff; (b) KRW 300 million; (c) KRW 3/7; and (d) KRW 3/7; and (c) was discarded

(2) The Defendant Plaintiffs sold the forest land of this case to the Plaintiff B, and C, each of which was KRW 85,714,286 ( KRW 300 million = KRW 2/7) and damages for delay as described in the primary purport of the claim. (2) The Defendant Plaintiffs sold the forest land of this case to the Defendant, and I again sold the forest land of this case to the Defendant.

A sales contract made between the plaintiffs and the defendant is a way to make an interim omission registration, and no real sales contract was concluded between the plaintiffs and the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is not obligated to pay the purchase price to the plaintiffs.

The defendant, at the first instance court, led to the confession of the conclusion of the contract of this case, but such confession is made by mistake of legal judgment and thus revoked.

B. In a case where the confession of the legal doctrine that is premised on the premise that there is no consent of the other party, the confession may be revoked in a case where the confession party proves that the confession does not fit the truth and that the confession was due to mistake.

At this time, the fact that the truth does not fit can be proved by direct evidence, but it is possible to prove indirect facts that can confirm that the confession does not fit the truth.

In addition, there is proof that confession is contrary to the truth, and the confession is caused by mistake.