1. The Defendants jointly committed against the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,000 and KRW 10,000 among them, respectively, shall be from September 1, 2018 to 30,000.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 1, 2018, the Plaintiff purchased at KRW 1.265 billion for the purchase of the Seoul Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and the third floor detached housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) that the Defendants owned and sold each of the shares of KRW 1/2 and jointly.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

According to the sales contract prepared at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff is deemed to succeed to KRW 10 million on the day of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 30 million on September 3, 2018, and the remainder of KRW 40 million on September 3, 2018, respectively, on November 30, 2018.

In addition, if the seller or the buyer cancels the contract as the contractual obligation is not performed, the down payment should be based on the amount of damages.

C. According to the above sales contract, the Plaintiff paid the Defendants the sum of KRW 40 million, including the down payment of KRW 10 million on September 1, 2018, and the intermediate payment of KRW 30 million on September 3, 2018. However, the amount of the obligation to return the lease deposit to be actually succeeded to with respect to the instant housing was more than KRW 985 million notified by the Defendants, and as the procedures for compulsory sale of the said housing are in progress, even if the Plaintiff paid the purchase price under the contract, the ownership cannot be transferred fully.

【Identification Evidence】 The fact that there is no dispute, each entry of Gap's 2-7 evidence (including virtual number) and the whole purport of pleading 【Evidence Evidence】 The statement of evidence No. 1

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that the instant sales contract had reached an impossible state due to the Defendants’ nonperformance of obligation, and thus, the instant contract was lawfully rescinded when the duplicate of the instant complaint containing the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to rescind was delivered to the Defendants.

Therefore, the Defendants, a joint seller, were jointly paid to the Plaintiff as restitution.