1. The Defendant is due to trading on April 17, 2012 with respect to each of the share of 1/8 square meters among the 615 square meters in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant concluded a sales contract for the following real estate (hereinafter “instant contract”).

The date of a sales contract: On April 17, 2012, the date of each Do: E (Defendant) and the number of agents G: The sale price of 292.7 square meters of land: 468,000,000 won for the down payment of KRW 50,000,000 for the contract: Three (G, I, and J) co-ownership shares: 3 (G, I, and J) co-ownership shares.

B. The buyer of the instant contract is “Plaintiff C and one other,” but the actual buyer is the Plaintiffs who are in a marital relationship with C and the remaining one.

On March 26, 2012, after subdivisions, the registry (previous land) registry (pre-sale land registry) registry (pre-sale land registry) registry (pre-sale land registry (pre-sale land registry) registry (pre-sale land registry) and the land substitution registry (pre-sale land registry) registry (pre-sale land registry) 1,229m2, Ulsan-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, 585.4m2, Nam-gu, 612.7m 292.7m 7m 292.7m 292.7m 1/2 of the shares of Defendant 1/2 M 1/4 N 1/4 of the shares, namely, the shares of the Defendant (KL) (1/2) to the Plaintiffs on December 7, 2015 due to sale and purchase on November 30, 2015.

C. The process of subdivision of each of the above real estate is as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as "the following real estate shall be specified only as a parcel number when named):

The Plaintiffs paid the full purchase price stipulated in the instant contract, and the Defendant completed the registration procedure on December 7, 2015 with respect to the total of 1/8 square meters of H 614 square meters in total, each of the 1/8 square meters of H 614 square meters in total.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Evidence A1-6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. 1) The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration only with respect to part of the subject matter of the contract in this case, and since he did not perform the procedure for ownership transfer registration as to the part as set forth in paragraph 1 of this case. 2) The defendant is obligated to do so.