1. The defendant received KRW 252,146,970 from the plaintiff A, and then the plaintiffs are allowed to receive KRW 1968,00 from the plaintiff A.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 16, 2009, Plaintiff A completed the registration of ownership transfer for one-half portion of the 1/2 portion of the 1/2 portion of the 1/2 portion of the 1/2 portion of the 1/2 portion of the 1/2 portion of the 1/2 portion of the 1/2 portion of the 1/2 portion of the 1/2 portion of the 1/2 portion of the 1/2 portion of the 1/2 portion from the Defendant (the 120,958,870 won), the said day

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). On September 16, 2009, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer for each/4 of one-fourths of each of the 1/4 square meters out of the 439 square meters of the Sinung-gu E road, Young-gu, Young-gu, Seoul.

(Transaction Price 11,870,000). (b)

Plaintiff

B, on July 23, 2010, Plaintiff A, and on July 23, 2010, the registration of ownership transfer due to the gift on July 20, 2010, and on the remainder of 1/4 on May 27, 2015, Plaintiff A completed the registration of ownership transfer due to the division of property on May 13, 2015, and currently owns 1/2 shares out of the instant real estate.

Plaintiff

B, on May 27, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of property division as of May 13, 2015, with respect to one-fourths of one-fourths of one-fourths of one-fourths of one-fourths of one-fourths of one-halfs of the above E-road 439 square meters.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings】

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. (1) The plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiff Eul purchased 1/2 shares of the real estate of this case from the defendant through the introduction of the plaintiff Eul's plaintiff Eul, and that the defendant may obtain a registration certificate if the defendant establishes the right to collateral with a maximum claim amount of KRW 300 million by selling the real estate at a low price in order to avoid the heavy taxation provision of transfer income tax. The mortgage of this case is null and void as it was made formally without any separate agreement between the plaintiff Eul and the defendant as to the secured claim, or even if the secured claim exists.

Even 300 million won.