1. With respect to one-six-six-six-six-six-six-one-six-one-six-one-six-one-six-one square meter in

A. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B is against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s main claim.

E married to F, three children, such as Defendant B (C), Plaintiff (V) and Defendant C (C), were placed in the chain of marriage.

F The F died on March 23, 1975, and E on July 29, 2006.

Upon the death of E, the Plaintiff and the Defendants received the registration of transfer in a good manner as to “406/16/1624 of the 1624 square meters of G-si G-si 1624 square meters,” which were owned by E up to August 25, 2006, respectively.

(406/4872 shares). However, with respect to “one-half share of 881m2 of the above D 881m2 (hereinafter “the land in this case”) which is another real estate owned by E, the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not take any measures, such as the registration of inheritance, even though they received inheritance equally once 1/3 of each of them.

When calculating inheritance shares based on the whole land, each share of 1/6 (=1/2 shares x 1/3) is applicable.

In addition, on April 7, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendants drafted an agreement on the division of inherited property, such as the attached Form, (hereinafter “instant agreement on division”).

The facts above are not significantly disputed between the parties.

According to the above facts, the defendants are obligated to perform the registration procedure for transfer of ownership with respect to one-six percent of each of the land in this case to the plaintiff according to the above agreement for division of inherited property, unless there are special circumstances.

Now, the defendants' simultaneous performance defense is examined.

The Plaintiff does not deny that prior to the agreement on division of this case, the Defendants agreed to pay the consideration for the transfer of shares to the Plaintiff.

However, there is only difference as to the "amount of money".

Unlike the Defendants, the Plaintiff asserts that “7.5 million won” was “5 million won”.

The Plaintiff transferred KRW 5 million to Defendant B on April 6, 2009, the day before the Agreement on Division was concluded.

[B] B] The Plaintiff also recognizes that the above amount belongs to the “price” mentioned above.

thereafter;