1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay KRW 95,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

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

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On March 21, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased the sales price of KRW 416 square meters from Defendant B (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); (b) at the time, the buyer was the Plaintiff’s name E; (c) the seller was the Plaintiff’s name; and (d) the seller was the Defendant C, the son of Defendant B registered as the owner of real estate.

B. At the time of the instant sales contract, the transfer of ownership was entered into a special agreement one year after the remainder date ( March 30, 2012) with the date desired by the purchaser. The Plaintiff paid the Defendants the purchase price of KRW 95 million, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership on April 4, 2012 under the name of E, the buyer, first of all.

C. The Plaintiff continued to request Defendant B to register the ownership transfer pursuant to the instant sales contract after June 2016 through text messages, etc., but the Defendants did not comply with such request.

Accordingly, on April 3, 2017, the Plaintiff sent a certificate of content to Defendant C as the receiver. The purport of the content was to cancel the instant sales contract unless the registration of ownership transfer is made by April 15, 2017. The content certification received by Defendant C’s ancillary F (GG) around April 5, 2017.

E. Meanwhile, around June 16, 2017, the Defendants prepared a certificate of personal seal impression for sale necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership under the instant sales contract and offered it to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2-7, 12, 13 (including virtual numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 3, 10, 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant sales contract had been lawfully rescinded due to the Defendants’ nonperformance (the purport that the contract was rescinded according to the highest order issued on April 3, 2017, or was rescinded by delivery of the duplicate of the instant complaint). The Plaintiff’s assertion sought the refund of the amount equivalent to the purchase price. The instant sales contract becomes null and void because it constitutes an unfair juristic act, or the Defendants’ deception.