1. The defendant shall receive KRW 392,200,000 from the plaintiff and at the same time real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant purchased the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant, and sought against the Defendant to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the instant building at the same time as the remaining purchase price is paid from the Plaintiff.

On this issue, the defendant registered that the building of this case is owned by others, not the defendant, and thus the plaintiff won the case against the defendant.

Even if it is impossible to acquire ownership of the above building, the lawsuit of this case asserts that it is unlawful because there is no legal benefit.

However, the benefit of the lawsuit is not denied solely on the ground that the plaintiff's present due date has arrived but the existence of the claim for performance has been asserted, in principle, the benefit of the lawsuit is recognized, and that there is a reason that it is impossible or considerably difficult to perform or execute even after being given

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Determination as to the existence of the obligation to register ownership transfer 1) Verification Nos. 1-1, 1-2, and 3-2 of the facts of recognition No. 1-2 of the document (the authenticity of the document is presumed to be established, since there is no dispute over the fact that the stamp image next to the name of the defendant company is based on the

The defendant asserts that C/D, who was an employee of the defendant company, stolen the seals of the defendant representative director and prepared Gap evidence No. 3 (the same title). Thus, Gap evidence No. 3 cannot be used as evidence.

However, the entry of No. 2 in the evidence No. 3 was merely a fact that C and D brought the defendant's documents or computers, and it was done after Apr. 12, 2005, the document No. 3 was prepared around Dec. 2, 2007, which was closed by the defendant (see No. 2, No. 7).

In addition, the evidence No. 3 and the preparation form are identical, and other agreements of the same subparagraph with which the representative director has no name.