1. The Plaintiff:

A. From January 23, 2015, Defendant B: 68,099,180 won and its related thereto:

B. Defendant C is charged with KRW 55,55,094.

In fact, Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 15, 1987 with respect to 1/2 shares of 3,583 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) among the 3,583 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). Defendant C completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 24, 1996 with respect to the remaining 1/2 shares of the said land.

On March 15, 2005, Defendant D completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the portion of 330/3,583 of the entire land of this case among the above shares of Defendant C.

On February 11, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendants to purchase the instant land in KRW 1 billion (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendants (hereinafter “instant contract”). As a special agreement, the Plaintiff agreed that “this contract is a area contract entered into on the public register and is responsible for the buyer’s ex post facto license.”

According to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant C a down payment of KRW 50 million, and paid the Defendants the full payment of KRW 1 billion, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land on March 12, 2014.

On the other hand, the head of Jeonju-si, Jeonju-si, the head of Jeonju-si, by misunderstanding the boundary of the F forest area of the instant land adjacent to the instant land and indicating the actual area of the instant land is not 3,583 square meters, but not 3,095 square meters, on July 9, 1997, and notified Defendant B and C of the registration of the instant land as a registered matter. The Plaintiff filed an application for correction of the registered matters in the course of surveying the instant land. On June 5, 2015, the area of the instant land was changed to 3,095 square meters on the land cadastre and the entire registration certificate.

【In the absence of dispute, there is no ground for recognition, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul's evidence Nos. 4, and the fact-finding results with respect to the head of the Jeonsan-si of this court, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the plaintiff's assertion by the judgment party, and the purport of the contract of this case is "the sale to designate the quantity", and the contract of this case is entered