1.(a)

The sales contract concluded on August 27, 2014 with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list between the Defendants and D is 225,00.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 15, 2012, D drafted a notarial deed (No. 139 of 2012, a notary public No. 2012, hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) with the purport that the Plaintiff will repay the loan obligation of KRW 650 million, which occurred on June 10, 2011, by June 10, 201.

B. On August 27, 2014, D entered into a sales contract for the sale of real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by itself to the Defendants (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer with the Daegu District Court’s registration No. 169399, Aug. 27, 2014.

C. At the time of the instant sales contract, D owned the instant apartment house with a market price of KRW 425 million, the officially announced value of KRW 9,398,000,000, which is equivalent to KRW 740 square meters, and the appraisal as of February 4, 2013, which is equivalent to KRW 390,000,000, KRW 406,000,000, KRW 824,398,000,000.

On the other hand, D alleged that the Defendants of KRW 650,00,000,00 and KRW 213,263,479 on the instant authentic deed against the Plaintiff were liable to the Plaintiff. However, according to each of the Gap evidence Nos. 12-1 and 2, D was prosecuted as the Daegu District Court 2015Da1168 on the ground that he deceptioned I and acquired KRW 213,263,479 on the ground that D fraudulently acquired KRW 213,00,00,00,000 on the instant authentic deed, and the above court stated that the agreement was submitted on the ground of the recovery of the above deceptive money in the sentencing with sentence of 1 year suspended sentence for D, the Prosecutor appealed appealed against the above judgment and agreed to pay the above deceptive money by I, but the Defendants did not assert the amount of damage otherwise than the I’s promise.