1. The Defendants jointly share the Plaintiff KRW 55 million, and Defendant B with respect thereto from July 25, 2018, and Defendant C with respect to the Plaintiff on July 25, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 14, 2009, Defendant B entered into the instant sales contract with Defendant B (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with D included the housing owned by D in the E Housing Site Development Project zone executed by the Korea Land and Housing Corporation. As such, Defendant B entered into a contract with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation to purchase the ownership of the housing site of migrants selected and supplied as a person eligible for relocation (hereinafter “instant ownership”) for KRW 80 million (hereinafter “instant ownership purchase contract”).

B. The Plaintiff’s conclusion of the resale contract of this case 1) Defendant B sold the sales right of this case. 2) The Plaintiff purchased the sales right of this case at KRW 140 million around December 10, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant resale contract”). C.

The Plaintiff and D’s agreement 1) The instant sales contract constitutes a case where the housing site was resold in violation of the main sentence of Article 19-2(1) of the Housing Site Development Promotion Act. According to the former part of Article 19-2(2) of the same Act, the said sales contract is null and void. 2) As the instant sales contract becomes null and void, D was unable to transfer the instant sales right to the Plaintiff. Around 2018, D agreed to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 62,916,800 of the amount of LH contract deposit, KRW 85 million of the amount of premium return, KRW 35 million of financial expenses (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

The Defendant C prepared a written confirmation of Defendant C to pay KRW 55 million to the Plaintiff by April 30, 2018 (hereinafter “instant confirmation”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, and 18, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim

A. In full view of all the facts and circumstances acknowledged earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 18, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff, as a broker of defendant C, provided and purchased the sales right of this case from the defendant Eul with KRW 140 million.