1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally serve as the Plaintiff KRW 157,576,620 and as a result, from July 8, 2014 to October 20, 2016.

1. Presumed factual basis

A. On January 15, 1998, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with Defendant C on behalf of D, with each of the following terms: (a) approximately KRW 7,200 of the 7,200 square meters of land E (F, G, H, I) in Nam-si, Namyang-si; and (b) the seller D, the purchaser, the Plaintiff, the purchase price of KRW 46,00,000 of the purchase price.

On January 15, 1998, the Plaintiff paid KRW 30,000,000 out of the purchase price of KRW 46,000,000 to Defendant C.

B. On August 12, 2003, the Plaintiff concluded each sales contract (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”) with respect to 200 square meters among G 14,479 square meters in Namyang-si, Namyang-si (hereinafter “instant land”), stating that “the Defendants, buyers, Plaintiff, 46,000,000 won [30,000 won out of the sale price shall be replaced by the Plaintiff’s payment to Defendant C on January 15, 1998, and the remainder amount of KRW 16,00,000,000 and the civil construction cost (70,000 won per square year) shall be considered as “the agreement that the Defendants shall make the land subject to the sale available to build a new house as well as pay the Plaintiff the ownership transfer registration procedure at the same time.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants made 200 square meters out of the instant land available for new construction and the Plaintiff’s obligation to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant performance obligation”) became impossible on August 27, 2007 or September 5, 2007 or on April 2, 2008.

Therefore, the Defendants, a joint seller of the instant sales contract, are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for any performance profit and any damages incurred therefrom, which would have been incurred by the Plaintiff if the Defendants performed the instant performance obligation.

(b) The following facts are recognized in full view of the respective descriptions and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 7, 30 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence No. 5 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole arguments.

The land of this case is diverse from October 9, 200 to April 2, 2008.