1. On August 9, 2017, the Defendant, among each real estate listed in the separate sheet, trades each of the plaintiffs with respect to one-half shares.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 14, 1995 with respect to D’s 3,405 square meters prior to Seosan-si prior to the subdivision (hereinafter “D’s land prior to subdivision”). The land prior to subdivision was divided into D’s 1,311 square meters prior to Seosan-si, Seosan-si, and 1,984 square meters prior to E’s 1,984 square meters prior to the subdivision.

B. On the other hand, on June 9, 2017, the Plaintiffs (each of the Plaintiffs’ shares 1/2) concluded a sales contract with the Defendant setting the price for each of the lands listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) as KRW 9,90,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and paid the Defendant the purchase price as KRW 6 million on June 9, 2017 and KRW 3.9 million on September 19, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7 (including additional numbers), the result of the commission of surveying and appraisal to the President of the District of District of District of the Korea Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership with respect to each one-half share of each of the lands of this case to the plaintiffs.

B. The defendant asserts to the following purport:

In order to construct a building on D’s land before subdivision, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant entered into the instant sales contract on the condition that they deliver to the Defendant a written consent for permanent use of land for the establishment of a road on the 1,398 square meters of land owned by the Plaintiffs on the 1,398 square meters prior to Seosan-si, Seosan-si.

However, the plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the plaintiff cannot comply with the plaintiff's request because they failed to comply with the agreement under the contract of this case, such as imposing new conditions without agreement or delivering a written consent for land use different from the agreement in violation of the agreement.

The evidence submitted by the Health Team and the defendant alone is conditional as alleged by the defendant.