1. The Defendant (Appointed Party), the Defendants, and the designated parties shall each share of 1/6 square meters in Daegu Jung-gu, 200.3 square meters to the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

On June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the deceased on June 30, 2015, with the content that the Plaintiff shall purchase from the deceased the FF volume KRW 200.3 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) at KRW 190 million, and that the intermediate payment of KRW 10 million shall be paid by July 20, 2015 on the contractual day; the intermediate payment of KRW 30 million shall be paid by July 7, 2015; and the remainder of KRW 150 million shall be paid by July 20, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). As the Deceased died on August 7, 2015, the Defendant (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Defendant”) B, Defendant C, D, E, and designated parties inherited the deceased’s property in proportion to their respective shares of 1/6.

[Ground of recognition] Fact-finding without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings are determined as above. The defendants and the designated parties have the obligation to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on June 30, 2015 with respect to each of 1/6 shares of the land of this case to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

As to this, Defendant B did not receive KRW 150 million after the conclusion of the instant sales contract. As such, Defendant B simultaneously made a simultaneous performance defense to the effect that it is impossible for the Plaintiff to comply with the claim of this case prior to receiving the sales balance. As such, comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances, the Plaintiff paid the remainder of the instant sales contract to the Deceased. Thus, Defendant B’s defense is without merit.

As to the Plaintiff’s payment of the remainder of the instant sales contract as a check, Defendant B asserts that the buyer’s deposit the remainder into the seller’s personal financial account is in accord with the empirical rule, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the buyer paid the remainder as a check is unacceptable.

However, the Plaintiff concluded the instant sales contract.