Defendant C shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 41,736,228 as well as 12% per annum from May 31, 2019 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around 1980, the Plaintiff’s attached D sold the purchase price of KRW 344 square meters prior to the division to Defendant C’s subsidiaries related to the private village, for KRW 2,00,000,000 prior to the division (hereinafter “Fri”) and died both D around 198 and E around 2001.

B. On September 20, 2004, the previous G 344 square meters prior to the division was divided into 279 square meters prior to G and 65 square meters prior to H.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) 279 square meters prior to G after division.

The registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the wife I of the network D on February 24, 1999 on the land of this case due to the consultation division, and as I died on March 5, 2017, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the plaintiff on March 29, 2017 due to the inheritance due to the consultation division.

The Plaintiff and Defendant C are related to the sixth degree, and Defendant B is the wife of Defendant C.

I, on May 9, 2003, completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer based on the trade reservation in the name of Defendant B on the instant land.

Upon the Plaintiff’s inheritance of the instant land from the mother-friendly I, on March 29, 2017, the Plaintiff completed a provisional registration with the same content as Defendant B’s name on the same day after cancelling the provisional registration on March 29, 2017, and on May 22, 2017, the provisional registration was revoked.

E. On July 31, 2017, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer under Defendant B’s name on August 1, 2017 for the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. (1) With respect to the claim for damages caused by the obligee’s delay, the Defendants asserted by the Plaintiff did not need to provide the Defendants with the obligation to transfer ownership of the instant land for a long time on the ground that “if the instant land owned by the Defendant is sold together with other land owned by the Plaintiff, only the purchase price is changed” and the Plaintiff refused to take the procedure for transfer of ownership of the instant land for a long time.

Therefore, it is true.