1. The plaintiff, among the parts against defendant E, F, and G in the judgment of the court of first instance, falls under the amount ordered to be paid below.

The reason why the court of Korea, which partially accepted the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the part concerning the reason for the judgment of the court of first instance, after deducting the “determination on the claim for damages arising from unlawful acts” from the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2). Therefore, this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

[Plaintiff asserts that even if he/she received farmland purchase funds from the deceased and the defendant E by unlawful means, even if he/she did not cancel the contract and restore the land accordingly, he/she may seek for payment of penalty equivalent to compensation for delay in relation to the obligation to return the purchase price in accordance with Article 10(6) of the sales contract prepared with the deceased and the defendant E, and Article 8 of the sales contract prepared with the defendant E. However, all of the provisions stipulate "where the contract is cancelled, unless the contract provides for a penalty, the plaintiff may not demand the payment of penalty accompanying the other party's obligation to restore (the duty to return the land ownership) unless he/she performs his/her obligation to restore the land, and it cannot be interpreted by analogy expansion in favor of the plaintiff who is the author of the contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da79644, Aug. 25, 2011). It is difficult to accept the Plaintiff's argument. Damage compensation for a tort caused by an illegal act means property disadvantage caused by the illegal act, i.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da91828 Decided April 29, 2010, etc.). The fact that, in collusion with Defendant E, G E, G E, G network A, and Defendant F, the actual sales price of the instant farmland was KRW 190,00,000,000, which belonged to said KRW 2666,000,000 and was subsidized as farmland purchase funds, is as seen earlier.

However, Defendant E and G are simple.