1. The Defendants’ respective KRW 250,000,000 to the Plaintiff, respectively, and Defendant B from November 2, 2016 to Defendant C, and Defendant C from December 2, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant B, on October 31, 2014, to sell KRW 2500,000 of the shares of Nonparty D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”). The Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant C on October 31, 2014 to sell KRW 2550,000 of the shares of D at KRW 250,000 (hereinafter “the shares sales contract of this case”) with Defendant C (hereinafter “the shares sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendants”), and the fact that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 25,00 of the shares of D to the Defendants does not conflict between the parties, or is recognized based on the respective entries of subparagraphs 1 and 2, the entire pleadings, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the Defendants are obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the purchase price of shares and damages for delay based on the respective share purchase contract of this case.

2. The Defendants asserted as to the Defendants’ assertion that the sales amount under each of the instant sales contracts is KRW 210 million, not a total of KRW 500 million, and all of them have been repaid. The Defendants asserted that each of the instant sales contracts with Gap evidence No. 1 was prepared in a formal manner in order to register the Defendants in the register of shareholders.

However, inasmuch as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, barring any special reason to deny the probative value of the disposal document, it is not permitted to deny the probative value of the disposal document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Meu789, Nov. 12, 1985; 89Meu10484, Nov. 10, 1989). As long as the Defendants recognized the authenticity of each share transfer contract under the evidence No. 1 of this case, it shall be deemed that there was a juristic act in accordance with the contents of each share transfer contract, and there is no other evidence to reverse this, the Defendants’ assertion that the sales amount under each of the instant contracts for the purchase of stocks of this case is KRW 210,000,000,000 according to each of the instant contracts for the purchase of stocks

On the other hand, however,