Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Kim Jong-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

New Venture Co., Ltd. and two others (Law Firm Yang Hun-Ga, Attorneys Cho Nam-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

June 3, 2011

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2008Gahap9037 Decided December 30, 2009

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the remaining parts of the judgment, excluding the part on the retirement of Plaintiff 1’s claim Nos. 35,000,000 as to Defendant 2 and 3, shall be modified as follows:

A. Plaintiff 1:

① Defendant New Venture Co., Ltd. shall pay 312,890,781 won and 5% interest per annum from February 1, 2007 to October 12, 201 and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment;

② Defendant 2 and 3 shall pay 277,890,781 won among Defendant New Venture Co., Ltd. and their respective 312,890,781 won, as well as 5% per annum from February 1, 2007 to October 12, 201, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The Defendants shall pay to each of the Plaintiffs 2 312,890,781 as well as 5% interest per annum from February 1, 2007 to October 12, 201 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

C. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. All appeals filed against the plaintiff 1's defendant 2 and 3 regarding the claim of KRW 35,000,000 against the defendant 2 and 3 are dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit, including the costs of appeal against the plaintiff 1's incineration, shall be divided into two minutes, and the plaintiffs shall bear the remainder, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1-A (b) above may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiffs 448,764,500 won with 5% interest per annum from February 6, 2007 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, 24,19,500 won with 424,565,00 won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment (the plaintiffs changed the purport of the claim of this case to the above reduction).

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiffs

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs corresponding to the amount to be additionally paid under the above shall be revoked. The defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiffs 30 million won with 5% interest per annum from February 6, 2007 to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

B. The Defendants

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

I. Regarding claim for the purchase price

1. Basic facts

A. Illegal matters such as the plaintiffs' acquisition of ownership and alteration of the structure of buildings

1) On June 23, 2004, the Plaintiffs received from Nonparty 2 the land listed in paragraph (1) of the annexed Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) and the factory listed in Paragraph (2) of the annexed Table No. 2 of the same Table on the ground (hereinafter “instant previous building”; together with the instant land and the previous building, the Plaintiffs received the donation from Nonparty 2, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to each of the previous real estates of each of the instant previous real estate under the name of the Plaintiffs as of June 23, 2004 by the receipt of No. 59253, Jun. 23, 2004.

2) As of June 2006 and July 2006, the Plaintiffs acquired each of the previous real estate of this case, the following attachment, provisional attachment, entry registration of decision on commencement of auction, and establishment registration of mortgage have been completed for each of the previous real estate of this case, and the reorganization is as follows.

On September 1, 2005, the non-party 1 (the non-party of the judgment of the Supreme Court), on September 15, 2006, the non-party 368,250,958 on May 15, 2006, the non-party 1 (the non-party of the judgment of the Supreme Court), the non-party 3, the non-party 3, the non-party 68,250,958, the non-party 50 on May 26, 2006, the claim amount (the maximum amount of claims) or the right to preserve Gap, the non-party 42, the non-party 45, the provisional seizure of 45, Goyang-si, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 20004.

* Nos. 45, 46, and 49 are Plaintiff 1’s shares, and No. 51’s shares are Plaintiff 2’s shares.

Note 1) Serial

3) At the time when the plaintiffs acquired the ownership of the previous building of this case, the previous building of this case (1,989m2) was divided into two parts of wastewater tanks, wastewater treatment facilities, and warehouses (873m2, 116.72m2) and two parts of the previous building of this case (1,116.72m2, which were composed of wastewater tanks, wastewater treatment facilities, and warehouses (1,989m2). However, around July 2004, the plaintiffs removed part of the previous building of this case, and constructed a new building (hereinafter "the previous building of this case") following the operation part and the building of this case (hereinafter "the building of this case"). As a result, the previous building of this case was modified into 1,989m2 from the previous steel framed dyke roof factory of 1,989m2 to the 2,05m2,05m2, and the new building of this case and 3m2,005m2.

4) As a result, from February 15, 2005, the Sinyang-si Office ordered the plaintiffs to restore the building of this case to its original state of 19,772,500 square meters at the previous steel-frame splate roof 1989 square meters for the reason that "the building was newly constructed without obtaining any construction permit in violation of Article 8 of the former Building Act" through several times, and notified the plaintiffs of the corrective order and the notice of imposition of non-performance penalty, which would impose a non-performance penalty amounting to 309,72,50 won upon the non-performance of the order, and the plaintiffs 1 did not comply with the corrective order issued by the competent Gu office on Nov. 25, 2005, as Seoul East-gu District Court Decision 2005Ra20259, "the columns and beamss of the building of this case as the steel structure of this case without obtaining any construction permit, and the walls and roof and roof of the building of this case to 008 square meters and the new building.

B. Conclusion of a sales contract between the Plaintiffs and Defendants 2 and 3 on June 13, 2006

1) The plaintiffs removed the outer walls, part of the building of this case, which was a part of the building of this case, which infringed upon the maintenance of the city. Upon the completion of the removal, the plaintiffs were trying to obtain the permission for extension or reconstruction after the construction design. The defendant 2 and 3, who operated the defendant New Technology Enterprise (Seoul) for the purpose of manufacturing concrete secondary products such as bricks, is the company for the purpose of manufacturing concrete products; hereinafter the defendant 2 and 3, who purchased the building of this case from the defendant 2 and 3, the building of this case, which had been used as a laund factory with the plaintiffs on June 12, 2006, purchased the building of this case from the plaintiff 2,60,000,000, the building of this case, which had been used as a laund factory, to which the defendant 2 and 3 had been able to operate the building of this case as the building of this case with the permission of this case, and the building of this case 3, the building of this case had been removed from the building of this case 2 and the building of this case.

- Specially agreed matters (Subject to evidence A 2) -

(A) The term “seller” and “Buyer” mean Defendant 2 and 3)

1) The seller shall complete all removals of the unauthorized Facilities and Wastewater Facilities other than the existing permitted buildings prior to the remainder (including the completion of building permission).

2) Before the payment of intermediate payment, the seller completed the procedure for cancellation for the registration Nos. 42, 45, 46, 49, and 50 of each real estate of this case.

3) The sum total of the maximum debt amount of each of the instant real estate 1,400,000,000 Won 4) shall be settled at the time of the remainder after the buyer succeeds to it.

(iv) trade in the current status of the land use plan, land cadastre, cadastral map, copy of the register and the present factory.

5) The part payments shall be purchased and paid with the permission of land transactions, and shall be traded without any condition that the permission is not available.

6) This contract is a provisional contract to prepare a fixed contract, attaching all requirements.

2) On June 13, 2006, the following day, when entering into a regular sales contract with Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, the Plaintiffs agreed to sell each of the instant real estate to the same Defendants in KRW 2,600,000,000, and the intermediate payment in KRW 260,000,000, the intermediate payment in KRW 940,000, and the remainder in KRW 1,400,000,000. At the time of entering into such sales contract, the Plaintiffs agreed with Defendant 2 and 3 on the following special terms (hereinafter “instant special terms”).

- Specially agreed matters (such as evidence No. 3, No. 2) -

(A) The term “seller” and “Buyer” mean Defendant 2 and 3)

1) The instant land is a sale key on the premise of a concrete brick plant site.

2) The change of type of business to a laundry factory, a permitted concrete brick factory, or a permitted plant is changed to a type of business.

3) The seller refers to all removal of unauthorized facilities and wastewater facilities, other than existing permitted buildings, prior to any balance.

4) Even industrial wastes and buildings permitted but not by the buyer are disposed of by the seller upon extinguishment of the permission.

5) Before the payment of intermediate payment, the seller would have cancelled the registration of “A” on the registry, 42, 45, 46, 49, and 50 as the down payment.

6) The cost of bank loans 1,400,000,000 note 5) shall be settled as the balance after the buyer succeeds to it.

7) The damaged part of the present building is to be restored to its original state (including the basic facility electricity 1200 kw and other external chart).

8) The balance shall be KRW 600,000,000, excluding bank loans (contract deposits, part payments, loans + Cash = Total amount of KRW 2,00,000,000).

9) The land use plan, a certified copy of the register of land and buildings and the damaged factory condition shall be restored to its original state and shall be acquired.

10) The part payments shall be paid by acquiring land transactions and by mutual agreement, and shall be cancelled without any condition that permission is not possible.

11) The river site (40 square meters 1,600 square meters) is to be acquired by obtaining permission for use.

12) If there is an objection between both parties, it shall be determined according to customary practice and shall conform to the opinions of intermediaries.

13) Of the total purchase price of KRW 2,600,000,000, the land price of KRW 2,100,000 ( KRW 1,400 x 1,500,000) and the total purchase price of KRW 500,00,000 in total for buildings and other facility costs.

3) Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs requested Nonparty 6, who is one of their well-knowns, to obtain a building permit as a legitimate building on the instant building. Accordingly, Nonparty 6 requested Nonparty 6 to proceed with the design and permission procedures for the building permit as a legitimate building in the office of ○○○ ○○○ Office in July 2006.

C. Reagreement on the payment method of the purchase price and the conclusion of the pre-contract on July 19, 2006

1) On June 13, 2006, June 13, 2006, Defendant 2 and 3 paid 260,000,000 won to the Plaintiffs as down payment. The Plaintiffs failed to implement such an agreement even though they agreed to cancel both attachment of Goyang-si, which was established in each of the instant real estate as down payment received from the said Defendants, provisional attachment of Dongyang-si, registration of Nonparty 1’s decision of compulsory auction, and registration of Nonparty 3’s provisional attachment, and registration of voluntary decision of voluntary decision of commencement of auction by Ansan-F.

2) On July 19, 2006, Defendant 2 and 3 entered into a pre-sale agreement with the Plaintiffs on the date of completion of the pre-sale agreement with respect to each of the instant real estate on July 31, 2006, and the Defendants first received provisional registration with respect to each of the instant real estate in the name of the same Defendants. The Defendants agreed to take over the collateral obligation with respect to the instant real estate by means of an intermediate payment to be paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs, and upon the request of the Defendants to cancel all kinds of rights established on each of the instant real estate except for the collateral obligation with respect to each of the instant real estate by the said Defendants, the aforementioned Defendants’ money was transferred to the Plaintiffs by means of an intermediate payment to the Plaintiffs, and then the Defendants’ money was cancelled from each of the instant real estate except for the collateral obligation with respect to each of the instant real estate by the Masung Dosan and the YC. 3, 300,000,000 won.

3) Accordingly, from July 24, 2006 to August 18, 2006, Defendant 2 and 3 deposited KRW 675,000,000 in the passbook in the Plaintiff’s name, and upon holding it, deleted all of the registration of seizure of each of the real estate of this case, the registration of attachment of Dongyang-si Co., Ltd. and Nonparty 3, the registration of non-party 1’s decision of compulsory commencement of auction, the registration of seizure of Sungdong-si Office and the registration of seizure of Sungdong-si Office and the registration of establishment of mortgage in the above non-party 4’s name.

(d) Alteration of the terms of a sales contract for operating laundry factories;

1) On July 24, 2006, the above non-party 7, who was in fact in charge of the sales contract of each of the instant real estate, proposed that the operation of the laundry factory is much more beneficial than the operation of the laundry factory originally planned to Defendant 2 and 3. The defendants, such as the non-party 7, who represented the plaintiffs, were the same as the non-party 7, were partly amended as follows.

- Trading-related in the letter of commitment implementation (Evidence A 8, B No. 6, hereinafter “instant letter of commitment”).

(A) The term “seller” and “Buyer” mean Defendant 2 and 3)

1) In selling and buying the instant land, it is intended to trade the instant land on the premise of a concrete brick factory site, but it is intended to trade it as a site for a laundry factory in the original condition.

2) Although the authorization or permission for concrete brick factories was obtained, the authorization or permission is void.

3) Subject to the invalidation of the removal of sewage and wastewater facilities, water tanks, etc. and the authorization of brick factories, the removal cost therefrom is the deduction of the amount of KRW 300,000,000 out of the real estate purchase price (the amount of KRW 300,000 shall be the deduction of the amount of tax transferred to 30:70 only the amount of tax transferred. Reduction of KRW 300,000 from the real estate price is the tax amount of KRW 30:70).

2) As above, the Plaintiffs and Defendants 2 and 3 concluded that the instant building was premised on operating a brick factory, such as authorization and permission of brick factories and all removal of sewage and wastewater facilities, among the above sales contract, were null and void, and that it was unreasonable to operate the instant building as a laundry factory in the terms of the existing sales contract.

E. The final content of the instant sales contract and the transfer registration of ownership of each of the instant real estate

1) On July 2006, after the conclusion of the sales contract on each of the instant real estate between the Plaintiffs, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 applied for a loan of the instant real estate as security to the new bank in order to obtain a loan of money necessary for the balance of the purchase and sale around the end of July 2006. In the process of assessing the collateral value of each of the instant real estate, it became known that the instant building was partially demolished and newly removed the instant building, and that the entire building constitutes an unlawful building.

2) Accordingly, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 raised an objection against the Plaintiffs. While there is no problem because they were to remove part of the instant building and obtain new permission, the Plaintiffs were to remove part of the existing building at an early date and expand the area corresponding to the removal at the expense of the Plaintiffs, and to close the registration of ownership transfer on each of the instant real estate. The Plaintiffs were to complete the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate. On August 31, 2006, the Plaintiffs paid KRW 8,000,000 to the above ○○○○○○○ Office’s design cost, and submitted an application for permission for the construction (new construction) of the instant building to the Yongsan-gu Office on October 23, 2006.

3) Meanwhile, on November 16, 2006, Defendant 2 and 3 demanded the Plaintiffs, who did not obtain the above building permit, to transfer the ownership of each of the instant real estate, and received a written confirmation and documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership from the Plaintiffs on November 16, 2006, stating that “A consent shall be obtained without any objection to the registration of each of the instant real estate on the date desired by the Defendants after January 1, 2007.” Defendant 2 and 3 paid to the Plaintiffs KRW 82,00,000,000 from the Plaintiffs that “AF would be cancelled the right to collateral security for each of the instant real estate,” and paid KRW 80,00,000 from November 17, 2006 to December 27, 2007, the sum of KRW 82,000,000,000 to the Plaintiffs.

4) On January 5, 2007, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 requested the Plaintiffs to add the Defendant Company to the purchaser of each of the instant real estate, while maintaining the identity of the terms of the sales contract for each of the instant real estate (Subject to the premise that the instant building is to be used as a brick factory, the Plaintiffs and Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 prepared a provisional contract for each of the instant real estate from June 12, 2006 to January 5, 2007, which was added by the Defendant Company as the purchaser of each of the instant real estate, and the instant sales contract was finalized as follows.

5) In other words, the Plaintiffs, the buyers of this case, sold each of the instant real estate at KRW 2,600,000 to the Defendants, who are the buyers (i.e., KRW 2,100,000, KRW 500,000, and KRW 11). The Defendants calculated the total land price of KRW 2,000,000 and paid the remainder of the payment time of the remainder of the building and other facility costs on January 31, 2007). The Plaintiffs obtained a construction permit for the instant building from the Defendants, and conducted disposal of unauthorized Facilities and Industrial Wastes at the original disposal period. The destroyed portion was set at KRW 1 omitted. The Defendants were obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 260,00,00 with the payment of the purchase price at KRW 10,000, KRW 260,000 with the remainder of KRW 30,000,000 with the payment of the purchase price at KRW 360,000,00 with the remainder of the remainder of the sale price.

6) On February 5, 2007, the Defendants: (a) on November 16, 2006, with the documents for ownership transfer registration issued in advance by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants; (b) completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendants with 1/3 shares in each of the instant real estate; (c) on November 7, 2006, 200 additional registration of attachment was made; (d) on February 9, 2007, the Defendants paid KRW 6,209,880 to the Plaintiffs, and deleted each of the above attachment registration on February 21, 2007; and (e) the Defendants, on February 9, 2007, revoked the registration of the attachment in the name of the Agricultural Cooperative under the title of the collateral Security (No. 929,913,1333) with respect to each of the instant real estate.

F. The process of permitting the new construction of the building of this case and the removal of the building of this case and the new construction of the new building

1) Even after the Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning each of the instant real estate, the Plaintiffs attempted to obtain a construction permit on behalf of the Defendants, and the Plaintiffs attempted to remove and obtain an extension permit, which is about 667.24 square meters (202 square meters), the part of the instant building, which infringed on the maintenance of Si, among the instant buildings, but failed to obtain an extension permit from the Sindong-gu Office.

2) As seen below, the Defendants received a new document by changing the construction of the instant building into a new building on April 10, 2007, and received a new construction of the instant building at their own expense on June 15, 2007 with the permission for the new construction in the name of Defendant New Venture Business, and at their own expense on June 13, 2007, the Defendants removed 1,337.76 square meters (205 square meters - 667.24 square meters (hereinafter “the remaining part of the instant building”) of the instant building, which were 667.24 square meters that the Plaintiffs removed as above, and newly built a new building after the alteration of design.

【Partial Grounds for Recognition】 In the absence of a dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 10 (if there is a provisional number, including each branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply), 12, 13, 18 through 20, 28, 34, 47, 53, 56, 58, 59, 67, 72, 79, 79, 80, 87, 88, Eul evidence 1 through 8, 17, 19, 20, 24, 26, 31, 33, 34, 37, 39, 64 through 71, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the plaintiffs' claim for purchase price, etc.

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) According to the instant sales contract, the Defendants are liable for the remainder of KRW 1,927,353,913 (contract deposit 260,000,000) that the Defendants paid to the Plaintiffs pursuant to the instant sales contract + KRW 250,000,000 for the repayment of the obligation to Nonparty 4 to the mortgagee of the right to collateral security + KRW 5,500,000 + KRW 65,000 for the repayment of the provisional attachment obligation to Nonparty 3 + KRW 60,000 for the provisional attachment obligation to Nonparty 1 + KRW 130,00,000,000 + KRW 130,00,000 + KRW 10,000 for the repayment of the obligation to Nonparty 1 + KRW 104,00,940,940,780) for the repayment of the obligation to Nonparty 2,600,3600,700,000,0000 won for the remainder payment claim 2963636,3600.

2) Meanwhile, at the time of the conclusion of the promise to sell and purchase of this case on July 19, 2006, Defendant 2 and 3 had completed provisional registration with respect to each of the instant real estate, and decided to substitute the payment for the payment of the intermediate payment with the acceptance of the secured debt of the maximum debt amount of 970,000,000 won in the name of Ansan Agricultural Cooperatives. The amount of the final repayment made by the said Defendants to Ansan Agricultural Co., Ltd. is 929,913,133, including overdue interest of 62,342,465 won. The overdue interest of 62,342,465 won was incurred by the said Defendants due to their failure to make payment on July 19, 2006, and thus, the Defendants are liable to pay this amount to the Plaintiffs as part of the remainder of the purchase price.

3) Therefore, the Defendants are liable to pay the Plaintiffs totaling KRW 734,988,465 ( KRW 672,646,00 + KRW 62,342,465) and delay damages therefrom.

B. Determination as to whether the lawsuit against the plaintiff 1's defendant 2 and 3 against the non-paid purchase price of KRW 35,000,000 is lawful

1) With respect to the legitimacy of the above part of the lawsuit ex officio, where there exists a seizure and collection order against the garnishee, only the collection obligee may file a lawsuit against the garnishee, and the debtor shall lose the standing to file a performance lawsuit against the seized claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da60417, Sept. 25, 2008). In full view of the purport of the arguments in the evidence No. 25, No. 2006, Oct. 20, 206, the non-party 1, the creditor of the plaintiff 1, was issued a seizure and collection order against the defendant 2 and 3, respectively, on 35,00,00,00 won among the purchase price claim against the defendant 2 and 3, the above seizure and collection order became final and conclusive around that time. Accordingly, the plaintiff 1, as to the claim against the plaintiff 2 and the defendant 300,500 won among the purchase price claim against each of the above 3000,500 won among the parties claim against the plaintiff 300.

2) Plaintiff 1 bears the obligation of KRW 200,00,000 against Nonparty 1, but Nonparty 1 withdraws the decision of compulsory commencement on July 26, 2006 upon receiving payment of KRW 130,00,000 from Plaintiff 1. The Plaintiffs agreed to repay the remainder of KRW 70,00,000 to Nonparty 1 as the remainder upon receiving payment from the Defendants. The Defendants failed to pay the remainder to the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs’ payment of KRW 70,000,000 to Nonparty 1 around January 208, they asserted that the said part of the lawsuit is not unlawful, since the claim of KRW 70,00,000 was extinguished, which is the title of the claim and the collection order of KRW 130,00,00,00.

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 31, Nonparty 1 received 675,000,000 won from 130,000 won to 130,000 won from the part payments account opened in the passbook in the name of the Plaintiff on July 26, 2006 and withdrawn a compulsory auction on each of the real estate of this case. According to evidence No. 30, according to the evidence No. 30, the plaintiff 1 received the remainder of 70,000,000 won from the plaintiff 1. However, according to the purport of the oral argument No. 72, according to the whole purport of the oral argument No. 72, Nonparty 1 had the right to collect the above claim against the Defendants against the defendant, and the right to collect the above claim against the non-party 30,000,000 won can still be accepted.

C. Determination on the remainder of the purchase price claim except the above unlawful part

(1) According to the above facts, the defendants paid 260,00,000 won to the plaintiffs as down payment pursuant to the sales contract of this case. The defendants paid 260,00,000 won to the plaintiffs in order to resolve various restrictions on rights established in each of the real estate of this case except for the collateral obligations for the collateral security against the Masung Nonghyup and the Mascup, which was established with respect to each of the real estate of this case. In other words, the seizure registration of the above Goyang-si as to each of the real estate of this case, the provisional seizure registration of the same Goyang-si, the registration of the non-party 1 as to the non-party 1 as to the non-party 1 as to the non-party 1 as to the non-party 4's compulsory decision of commencement of auction, the seizure registration of Sungdong-dong, and the attachment registration of the above non-party 4 as 00,000,0000 won to the plaintiff 1 as part of the sales contract of this case.

(2) Meanwhile, the Defendants agreed to acquire the remainder of the secured debt 10. The Defendants decided on January 5, 2007 between the Defendants and the remainder of the purchase price 31 of the same month. The Defendants paid KRW 929,913,13 of the secured debt 207 with respect to each of the instant real estate on February 9, 2007. The Defendants should not be held liable for the remainder of the secured debt 10.0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Furthermore, in light of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement in evidence Nos. 58-1 through 3,65, which can be deemed to have been paid by the Defendants as the purchase price, it can be recognized that the Defendants paid only overdue interest of KRW 740,00,00 of the principal amount of the secured debt at the time of repayment of the secured debt for each of the instant real estate from the Defendants, until February 8, 2007, and the overdue interest rate of KRW 15% from October 10, 2005 to February 8, 2007 was calculated annually. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiffs’ overdue interest rate of KRW 2,432,876 won from February 1, 207 to August 8, 2007 (=740,000,000 x 15,000 won x 13936,294,379,296,39,379,296, etc.

(3) Therefore, among the sales contract of this case, the sales amount unpaid to the Plaintiff by the Defendants is KRW 655,51,743 (=2,600,000,000 - KRW 1,017,00,000 - KRW 927,48,257) (However, in the case of Plaintiff 1, the part rejected above should be deducted from his claim amount).

3. Determination on the Defendants’ assertion regarding the instant sales contract

A. Determination as to waiver, cancellation, specific agreement on the balance, and simultaneous performance defense

(1) Judgment on the assertion of renunciation

A) On November 16, 2006, the Defendants issued all necessary documents for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the instant real estate to the Defendants on the purport that the Plaintiffs accepted the registration without objection. In light of the circumstances where there is no timely demand from the Defendants prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiffs waived their right to claim the purchase price with respect to each of the instant real estate, and thus, the Plaintiffs cannot comply with their claim for the purchase price.

B) The waiver of a claim does not necessarily require an explicit declaration of intent, but must be recognized in cases where it can be deemed a waiver of a claim by means of a creditor's act or a declaration of intent. However, such recognition must be determined by strict interpretation of the creditor's act or declaration of intent in accordance with the contents of the pertinent legal relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da44774, 44781, Feb. 10, 1995, etc.). The plaintiffs delivered to the defendants on Nov. 16, 2006 a written confirmation that "it shall be approved without objection in registering at the date desired by the defendants after January 1, 207," and the fact that the documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership on each of the real estate of this case are delivered by the parties, but there is no dispute between the parties to the above recognition alone, but there is no other evidence to support the facts alleged by the defendants. Therefore, this part of the defendants' assertion is not acceptable.

(2) Determination as to the allegation of cancellation

A) The parties’ assertion

1) Although the Defendants received a correction order and a notice of imposition of non-performance penalty from the competent authority several times of the building without permission, they did not notify the Defendants of the above facts at the time of the instant sales contract, and later the Defendants removed the instant building without any choice in order to be exempted from the imposition of non-performance penalty amounting to approximately KRW 300,000,000. The Defendants expressed their intent to cancel the sales contract on the instant building by serving the complaint of the Seoul Central District Court 2007Gahap85, 1785, on the grounds that the above defects exist, on the ground that the Defendants expressed their intent to cancel the sales contract on the instant building, they are not liable for paying KRW 500,000,000 corresponding to the sales price on the instant building among the sales contract.

2) On March 15, 2007, the plaintiffs removed part of the building of this case which was affected by the maintenance of the time among the building of this case for the purpose of obtaining permission from the building of this case, and the building permission was granted from the head of Il-dong, Jung-dong on April 13, 2007. Although the plaintiffs knew that there was no unlawful building to be removed to the defendants, the defendants arbitrarily removed the building of this case and constructed a new building that needs to be removed by modifying the design around June 15, 2007. Thus, the defendants asserted that the sales contract of this case cannot be revoked because there was no reason attributable to the plaintiffs.

B) the board;

원고들이 이 사건 건물의 소유권을 취득할 당시 위 건물은 폐수탱크, 폐수처리장, 창고로 이루어진 가동 부분(873.12㎡)과 사무실, 제조장, 실험실, 보일러실로 이루어진 나동 부분(1,116.72㎡)의 2개 부분으로 나뉘어 있었는데, 원고들은 공사를 통하여 위 철골조 스레이트지붕 단층공장 1,989.84㎡을 철골조 판넬지붕 단층공장 2,005㎡로 변경하였던 점, 이후 관할구청인 고양시 일산동구청은 2005. 2. 15.부터 수회에 걸쳐 원고들에게 이 사건 건물을 원상복구할 것을 명하고, 만약 이를 이행하지 아니할 경우 309,772,500원에 달하는 이행강제금을 부과할 것이라는 내용의 시정명령 및 이행강제금부과예고통지를 한 점, 이와 같은 사실을 알게 된 피고 2, 3이 이의를 제기하자 원고들은 빠른 시일 내로 허가를 받아 주겠다는 취지로 이야기하고 2006. 10. 23. 일산동구청에 이 사건 건물에 관한 신축허가신청서를 제출한 점은 위에서 본 바와 같고, 갑 제9, 10, 13호증, 제67호증의 1, 2, 제72호증의 1, 2, 제78호증, 을 제39호증, 제65 내지 67호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 원고들이 위와 같이 2006. 10. 23. 이 사건 건물에 대한 신축허가를 받기 위하여 원고들 명의로 신축허가신청서를 접수하였으나 2007. 1. 22. 위 신청서는 원고들이 보완기간 내에 관련 서류를 보완하지 아니하여 서류미비를 이유로 반려된 점, ② 원고들은 피고 뉴덕흥기업의 명의로 2007. 2. 12. 다시 건축허가신청을 하였는데, 이 건축허가신청은 이 사건 건물 중 시유지 침범부분 667.24㎡를 철거하고 남은 잔여부분인 1,337.76㎡(2005㎡ - 667.24㎡, 이 사건 건물 중 잔여부분이다)에 518.02㎡를 증축하여 연면적 1855.78㎡의 건물을 건축하겠다는 내용이었던 점, ③ 한편 원고들은 위 증축허가를 받기 위하여 2007. 3.경 이 사건 건물 중 시유지를 침범한 부분 667.24㎡를 철거하였으나, 일산동구청은 위 증축허가신청 상의 기존 건축물이 건축물대장상 건물과 동일건물이 아니라는 이유로 동일 건물임을 소명하라고 신청인에게 요구하였던 점, ④ 이와 같이 원고들이 피고 뉴덕흥기업 명의로 제출한 위 증축허가신청서는 기존 건축물이 건축물대장상 건물과 동일건물이라는 점이 소명되지 아니하는 이상 신축허가가 아닌 증축허가를 받을 수는 없었던 점, ⑤ 피고들은 원고들이 이 사건 건물에 관하여 증축허가를 받아주지 못하자 이 사건 건물에 대한 증축허가가 나오기 어렵다고 판단하고 2007. 4. 10. 직접 위 2007. 2. 12.자의 증축신청서를 증축에서 신축으로 바꾸어 접수하였고, 같은 달 13. 신축허가를 받았던 점, ⑥ 피고들은 위와 같이 일산동구청으로부터 신축허가를 받고 난 이후 신축허가에서의 건축도면(증축도면에서의 도면과 같은 것이다)에는 기존의 기둥이 있어 세탁기 설치가 불가능하다는 이유로 건축의 설계변경을 위 ○○○ 건축사 사무소에 의뢰하였고, 2007. 5. 3. 원고들에게 기존 매매대상 건물의 면적인 602평을 제외한 나머지에 관한 신축비용은 피고들이 부담한다면서 기둥이 없고 처마 높이가 현 상태와 같은 건물의 신축을 요구하는 내용증명을 발송하였던 점, ⑦ 한편 일산동구청은 2007. 5. 30. 피고 뉴덕흥기업에게 ‘이 사건 건물에 관하여 발생한 위법사항(앞서 본 바와 같이 원고들이 공사를 통하여 철골조 스레이트지붕 1,989.84㎡의 건물을 철골조 판넬지붕 단층공장 2,005㎡의 건물로 무단신축한 행위)에 관하여 추인허가처리되어 후속행정조치가 종료되었다’는 취지의 추인허가 공문을 추가로 발송하였고, 피고들이 그 시경 이러한 공문을 수령하기도 하였던 것으로 보이고, 실제로 이후 위와 같은 무단신축 행위는 단속절차가 진행되지도 아니하였고, 단속대상도 되지 않았던 점, ⑧ 그럼에도 불구하고 피고들은 2007. 6. 15.경 원고들의 의사에 반하여 이 사건 건물 중 잔여 부분마저 모두 철거하고 2007. 10.경 설계변경허가를 받아 기존의 6. 8.미터 높이의 건물과 다른 새로운 9미터 높이의 건물을 신축하였던 주18) 점 등 이 사건 건물이 적법한 건물로 전환된 과정, 원·피고들 쌍방의 이에 대한 인식, 피고들이 이 사건 건물을 철거하고 새로 건물을 신축하게 된 경위 등에 비추어 판단해 보면, 피고들은 결과적으로 이 사건 건물 중 허가 없이 구조가 변경된 위법한 부분은 적법한 신축허가를 받았고 더 이상 단속대상이 되지 않는 적법한 건물로 전환된 사정(피고들에게 위법건축에 대한 이행강제금 부과는 상정할 수 없는 상황이었다)을 알면서 이 사건 건물을 임의로 철거한 것이므로, 이 사건 건물의 멸실은 원고들의 귀책사유가 아닌 피고들의 귀책사유에 기인한 것이라 할 것이다.

Therefore, since the above cancellation by the defendants is deemed unlawful, the defendants' claim for cancellation is without merit.

(3) Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion that the remaining balance was confirmed and agreed at KRW 600,000,000

The Defendants, around July 19, 2006, decided that Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 will take over the secured debt of the security interest of Ansan Nonghyup and Basul No.C. established in each of the instant real estate at the time of re-agreement with the Plaintiffs on the payment method of the purchase price of the instant real estate. The Defendants agreed to cancel the registration of each restriction on rights by repaying the debt related to the various kinds of secured rights established in each of the instant real estate except for the secured debt of the said Ansan Nonghyup and Basul No.C. as an intermediate payment to the Plaintiffs. The Defendants asserted that the remainder of the remainder is 60 million won, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it. However, according to the amendment process of the sales contract of the instant case, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit (the foregoing, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants are 60 million won, excluding the remainder of the loans, but the remainder of the down payment, intermediate payment, and cash was 20 million won and the Defendants paid the remainder of the purchase price of the instant real estate as 200 million won.

(4) Judgment on the simultaneous performance defense

The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiffs cannot comply with the Plaintiffs’ claim for the purchase price until the cancellation of the registration of the right to collateral security in the name of the No. 57-1 and No. 2 of the No. 57. However, the Defendants’ assertion that the Plaintiffs’ cancellation of the registration of the right to collateral security established in each of the instant real estate on February 18, 2010, prior to the closing of argument in the trial, can be recognized. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

B. Determination of set-off defense due to the right to claim damages due to nonperformance of obligation, etc.

(1) Claims for damages due to the removal of the building of this case and damages equivalent to the amount of the new construction

A) The parties’ assertion

1) At the time of the instant sales contract, the Defendants did not notify the Defendants that the instant building was an unauthorized building for which corrective order and non-performance penalty was issued several times by the competent authority. Since the Defendants were bound to remove the instant building and remove a new building in order to be exempted from the imposition of charges for compelling compliance amounting to approximately KRW 300,000,000, the Defendants asserted that: (a) the Defendants were bound to remove the instant building after they believed that the instant building was legitimate; (b) acquisition tax, registration tax, national housing bond purchase and other registration expenses paid on or before February 5, 2007; (c) KRW 20,000,000,000, which were installed by the Defendants; and (d) KRW 42,050,230,000, the Defendants were liable to compensate the Defendants for damages amounting to KRW 305,000,000,000,000 x KRW 425,204,714,27.

2) On or around March 2007, the plaintiffs removed part of the building of this case which infringed upon the maintenance of the time among the buildings of this case, and as a result, the construction permission was granted from the head of Jung-dong, U.S. on April 13, 2007. Although the plaintiffs knew that there was no unlawful building to be removed to the defendants, the defendants arbitrarily removed the building of this case and newly constructed new buildings that require them through the alteration of design. Thus, the defendants are not liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused by the removal of the building of this case or expenses incurred by the new construction of this case since they did not cause any reason to the plaintiffs.

B) the board;

As seen in the judgment on the above rescission claim, the destruction of the building of this case is not attributable to the plaintiff, but due to the reasons attributable to the defendants, and thus, the above assertion by the defendants who seek damages on a different premise is without merit.

(2) Claim for damages arising from nonperformance of waste disposal obligations

A) The defendants' assertion

At the time of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiffs did not perform their duties despite the removal of wastes on the instant land at the time of the instant sales contract. As such, the Plaintiffs need to pay KRW 93,690,000 for the removal of the said wastes, the Plaintiffs are liable to pay the Defendants KRW 93,690,000 due to damages arising from nonperformance as above.

B) the board;

1) In full view of each of the statements in the evidence No. 3, No. 3, and No. 62, the plaintiffs are liable to pay the defendants 15,200,000 won in compensation for damages, since the plaintiffs agreed to dispose of industrial wastes contained in each of the real estate of this case under the sales contract of this case. The defendants did not treat wastewater and filed a civil complaint around July 31, 2008, when the plaintiffs did not treat wastewater, they could recognize the fact that the amount of 200 tons of wastewater located in the water tank of the wastewater treatment facilities was processed by bringing the volume of 15,20,000 won.

2) In addition, the Defendants’ assertion that the disposal of wastewater existing in each of the instant real estate requires 54,390,000 won to treat construction waste. 21,00,000 won to dispose of 300 tons of construction waste, and the remainder of waste requires 18,300,000 won to dispose of designated waste, waste oil, asbestos, etc., the Defendants’ assertion that the disposal of 18,30,000 won should be made is not sufficient. However, the Defendants’ assertion that the above disposal costs should not be determined on the grounds that the appraisal document prepared on June 20, 2006 to June 24, 2006, which is adjacent to the date of conclusion of the instant sales contract, did not constitute excessive disposal costs as stated in Gap’s evidence. However, the Defendants’ assertion that the above disposal costs should not be determined on the grounds that there were 1 to 200,000 won or more.

(3) Claims for damages equivalent to expenses incurred in installing wastewater treatment facilities

A) The defendants' assertion

In preparing a sales contract as of June 13, 2006 with the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs agreed to reduce KRW 300,000,000 out of the purchase price of the sales contract, instead of exempting the plaintiffs from the obligation to remove the above wastewater treatment facilities, under the premise that the defendants operate a laund factory in the building of this case on July 25 of the same year on the premise that the defendants revised the terms of the sales contract of this case on the premise that the contract of this case was to operate a laundry factory in the building of this case on the condition that the defendants would operate the laundry factory in the building of this case. Since the agreement of reduction of the purchase price becomes null and void, the plaintiffs agreed to newly install the wastewater treatment facilities in lieu of the above agreement, the plaintiffs failed to perform the above agreement at a new intervals of installation of the wastewater treatment facilities, and the plaintiffs are liable to pay the defendants the above installation costs as damages for the failure to install the above wastewater treatment facilities.

B) the board;

On the other hand, the plaintiffs agreed to reduce 300,000,000 won out of the purchase price of the sales contract of this case instead of being exempted from the obligation to remove waste water treatment facilities, but again null and void, and there is no evidence to support the defendants' assertion that the plaintiffs agreed to newly install the wastewater treatment facilities. Thus, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit without any further review (In light of the purport of the evidence No. 8, No. 79-2 and No. 6 of this case's agreement execution letter, the plaintiffs and the defendants entered the sales price reduction of 300,000,000 won on the condition that the removal of the waste treatment facilities and water tank and the permission of the brick plant are null and void, and the transfer tax amount should not be reduced to 300,000,000,000 won out of the purchase price).

(4) Claim for damages equivalent to the cost of expanding electric facilities, the cost of installing water supply, and the cost of installing septic tanks.

A) The defendants' assertion

Although the Plaintiffs agreed to extend or repair electric facilities, waterworks, and septic tanks in the instant building at the time of the instant sales contract, the Defendants did not perform such agreement, and the Defendants paid KRW 2,100,000 to newly construct a new building and install a septic tank, and KRW 4,400,000 to install a septic tank, respectively. The costs of expanding the 600 kws for electric facilities are required to cover KRW 66,176,102. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are liable to pay each of the above amounts to the Defendants as compensation for nonperformance of their obligation.

B) the board;

1) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 3, the part destroyed including 1,200 kw of the basic electric facilities of the instant building at the time of the instant sales contract can be acknowledged as having been ordered to restore it to its original state, and there is no counter-proof. It is deemed that the Defendants’ operation of a laundry factory from the operation of a brick plant was made by the Defendants, and even if the contents of the instant agreement were modified, the said agreement was maintained as it was, even if the Defendants revised the content of the sales contract.

2) First of all, there is no evidence to deem the aforementioned part of the instant building as the damaged part of the instant building, which is subject to restoration to its original state (the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiffs should install it to the Defendants since the said part was not established in the existing building) with respect to the claim regarding the above water supply facilities and septic tank facilities, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiffs had to establish the above water supply facilities and septic tank facilities with respect to the Defendants. Therefore, the aforementioned part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3) Next, with respect to the cost of the extension of the electric facilities 600kw, as seen above, the plaintiffs agreed to provide the defendants with the basic electric facilities 1,200 kw at the time of the contract of this case. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above 600 kw's assertion by the defendants was installed outside the building of this case where the electric facilities were removed, and if the above 66,176,102 cost for the extension of the electric facilities were to be incurred due to their own fault, if the defendants removed the building of this case, they cannot seek damages equivalent to the cost of the extension due to the plaintiffs' default. Further, the statements in Eul evidence 42 (the defendants asserted that the cost of the extension of the above 66,176,102 cost is claimed only through a written estimate since the completion of the construction, and there is no other evidence to support this part of the defendants' assertion without merit.

(5) Claims for damages equivalent to the river occupancy fees, license fees, indemnities, and design service fees of the river site.

A) The defendants' assertion

Although the Plaintiffs agreed to obtain permission for the occupation and use of the river site near the instant land at the time of the instant sales contract, the Defendants did not perform such agreement, and thus, they did not incur damages, i.e., totaling KRW 13,473,220, including KRW 4,319,110, KRW 45,000 for river occupation and use fees, KRW 3,109, KRW 110 for indemnity, KRW 6,000 for river site design service fees, and KRW 6,473,220 for damages due to nonperformance, and thus, the Plaintiffs are liable to pay

B) the board;

According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 45-1 and 45-2's arguments and arguments, at the time of the instant sales contract, the plaintiffs agreed to obtain permission for the occupation and use of the river site, which is the river site, from the defendants at the time of the instant sales contract, but failed to perform the above obligations. The defendants paid KRW 3,109,110 with compensation in the name of the defendant New Venture Enterprise and paid KRW 45,00 with a license tax to obtain permission for the occupation and use of the river site. Thus, the plaintiffs are liable to pay the defendants totaling KRW 3,154,110 (= KRW 3,109,110 + KRW 45,000).

Then, according to the defendants' assertion, the above river occupancy charges and the claim for damages equivalent to the design service charges of the above river occupancy charges and Eul evidence Nos. 45-1 and 2, it can be acknowledged that the defendants paid KRW 4,319,10 to the river occupancy charges under the name of the defendant New Venture Enterprise. However, the above river occupancy charges are paid to the river management agency in consideration of the river occupancy charges under the River Act, and there is no causation between the losses suffered by the defendants and the acts that the plaintiffs did not obtain permission for occupancy and use of rivers. Thus, this part of the defendants' assertion is without merit (In addition, the defendants asserted that the above river occupancy charges were paid by the defendants because they did not pay the occupancy charges used before the sales contract of this case, but there is no evidence to acknowledge them, and according to the statement No. 45-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 45-1 and 2, the above person liable to pay the river occupancy charges is the defendant New Venture Enterprise, which is imposed on December 2, 2007).

Finally, with respect to the claim for damages equivalent to the design service cost of the Defendants’ assertion, there is no evidence to prove that the above design service cost of the Defendants’ assertion was spent in order to obtain permission to occupy and use the private-ridong (number 1 omitted). Thus, the Defendants’ assertion on the above part is without merit (as seen above, the part for which the Plaintiffs agreed to obtain permission to occupy and use is “the river site of the private-ridong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong,” and according to the statement in the evidence No. 46, the Defendants paid the design service cost for the purpose of obtaining permission to occupy and use the same (number 3 omitted), (number 4 omitted), (number 5 omitted), (number 6 omitted).

(6) Claims of amount equivalent to delinquent taxes and electricity charges 22)

A) The defendants' assertion

The Defendants paid KRW 6,209,880,00 on February 9, 2007 by the Defendants on behalf of the Plaintiffs, the Defendants paid KRW 6,209,880,00 on behalf of the Plaintiffs, and ② the Defendants received the instant building from the Plaintiffs on or after April 2007. Since the Defendants paid KRW 20,649,830 on the instant building on behalf of the Plaintiffs from May 2006 to February 2007, the Defendants were liable to pay each of the above amounts to the Defendants.

B) the board;

1) On February 9, 2007, after the Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the instant real estate, the payment of KRW 6,209,880,00 for the amount of arrears to the Gyeyang-gu Office in Yangyang-si, Yangyang-si. Therefore, as seen above, the Plaintiffs are liable to pay the said amount to the Defendants.

2) Next, in full view of the purport of the pleadings as to the portion of electricity paid in large amounts of KRW 20,649,830 from May 2006 to February 2007, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants agreed that “the burden of taxes and public charges, etc. on the instant real estate shall be based on the delivery date of the said real estate” at the time of the instant sales contract. The Plaintiffs delivered the instant building to Defendant 2, etc. around August 1, 2006 to operate a laundry factory in the instant building; the Defendants were liable for the total amount of electricity paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs up to July 1, 2006, the amount of electricity paid by the Defendants up to July 1, 206, KRW 123,46, KRW 196, KRW 796, KRW 196, KRW 796, KRW 196, KRW 7965, KRW 196, KRW 796, KRW 1965, KRW 796, KRW 2965, KRW 165, etc.

(7) A claim for restitution of unjust enrichment amounting to design cost

A) The parties’ assertion

1) The Defendants asserted that the Defendants are liable to pay the Defendants the design cost for the extension and remodeling of the instant building on behalf of the Defendants, as circumstances arise. The Defendants paid the Defendants the design cost for the extension and remodeling of the instant building on April 17, 2007 and the following day on behalf of the Plaintiffs, with the design cost for the extension and remodeling of the instant building at the request of the Plaintiffs. The Defendants asserted that the Defendants are liable to pay the Defendants the design cost paid on behalf of the Plaintiffs.

2) On February 12, 2007, when the plaintiffs concluded a design and supervision service contract with ○○ Construction and supervision office on behalf of the defendants, the plaintiffs paid KRW 22,00,000 to the above ○○○ Construction and supervision office with the design cost of KRW 8,00,000. The plaintiffs agreed not to refund the design cost that was already paid without paying the cost incurred to the above ○○ Construction and supervision office, and the above design cost of the defendants' assertion that the defendants' assertion is not responsible for paying the said cost since the defendants paid the new building on their own because they did not obtain the design permit by March 6, 2007.

B) the board;

The defendants paid 10,50,00 won to the above 00 ○○○ ○○ ○○ 1,207 and the following day to the above 10,50,000 won as design cost. However, there is no evidence consistent with the defendants' assertion that the plaintiffs paid the above design cost to the defendants. Rather, the defendants did not receive the above 13 evidence, 16-1, 2, 64 evidence, and the whole purport of the arguments, which were stated above 10,8,00 won as design cost of the above 20, and the above 20,000,000 won as design cost of the above 30,000,000 won as design cost of the above 20,000,000 won as design cost of the above 10,000,000,000 won as design cost of the new 20,000,000,000 won as design right of the new 20,000.

(8) A claim for restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the infrastructure charges

Since the Defendants paid 30,735,100 won as the infrastructure charges of the instant building on behalf of the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs asserted that they are responsible for paying the said money to the Defendants, and in full view of the overall purport of the entries and arguments in the evidence No. 47-1, No. 47-2 of this case, the Goyang market notified Defendant New Venture Co., Ltd. of scheduled imposition of KRW 30,735,100 of the infrastructure charges due to the alteration of factory (design) on January 30, 2008. Accordingly, the Defendants paid KRW 30,735,100 as the infrastructure charges on March 11, 2008. However, since the said infrastructure charges were to be paid by the Defendants as a result of the construction of a new building through a new design, the Defendants’ assertion that the above infrastructure charges should be paid to the Plaintiffs is not acceptable.

(9) Claims for damages equivalent to sales proceeds of a facility

A) The defendants' assertion

The plaintiffs concluded the instant sales contract on June 13, 2006 and sold all of the facilities attached to a building four times from July 5, 2006 to July 15, 2006, to KRW 50,000,000, after removing all water tanks, hot water tanks, electric power inside a building, boiler, boiler, and steel stoves, which are part of the facilities attached to a building, without permission of the defendants, thereby incurring damages equivalent to the above money. Thus, the plaintiffs are liable to pay the defendants the above money.

B) the board;

In light of the records in Gap evidence No. 3, the plaintiffs and the defendants acknowledged the fact that "total building and other facility costs" were the object of the sales contract of this case. However, there is no evidence to deem that the above objects of the defendants' assertion were attached to the building of this case as the object of the sales contract of this case and they were arbitrarily removed (the point at which the plaintiffs asserted that the above objects were removed was to operate the building of this case as a brick factory between the plaintiffs and the defendants, and at the time when the plaintiffs and the defendants agreed to remove all the parts that are not necessary for the brick factory to be used by the defendants). The above part of the defendants' assertion is without merit.

(c) Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants have claims against the plaintiffs, 29,730,180 won (29,20,000 won for damages equivalent to waste disposal expenses + river occupancy license, considerable damages 3,154,10 won for indemnity + 6,209,880 won for overdue electricity payment, + 5,166,190 won for overdue electricity payment. The above claims are presented to the defendants on October 22, 2010, which contain the defendants' assertion that they offset the claims against the plaintiffs' purchase price claims. The above claims against the plaintiffs are clearly stated in the records. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are offset against the plaintiffs' purchase price claims against the defendants, and the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants against the defendants are set off against the defendants within 29,730,180 won for offset of the above claims against the defendants within 360,571,3750 won for offset of the defendants' claims against the defendants, and the defendants' claims against the defendants against the defendants are set off within 36516,575,5750,515 billion won for offset against the defendants' respective claims against the defendants.

4. Conclusion

As above, the plaintiffs' claim for the purchase price against the defendants is KRW 625,781,563, and the joint seller's claim for the purchase price shall be deemed a divided claim, barring any special circumstances, and the ratio thereof shall be equal, and the joint purchaser's obligation for the payment of the purchase price shall be deemed to be an indivisible obligation in light of the relationship between the defendants, who are buyers, the circumstances leading up to the conclusion of the contract of this case, the changes by the parties, the circumstances leading up to the change of the parties, and the circumstances in which the defendants had decided to operate the factory by purchasing each of the real estate of this case, etc. (i.e.,, the act by the defendant company, which is an inevitable merchant, is presumed to be an act for business, and the act by the merchants is a commercial act for business, and the merchant bears the obligation jointly and severally pursuant to Article 57 (1) of the Commercial Act if one of them bears the obligation on account

Therefore, the plaintiffs, a joint seller, have a claim for the purchase price of each of the above 312,890,781 won (=625,781,563 won ± 2) against the defendants. Thus, the defendants are liable to pay 312,890,781 won among the above 277,890,781 won (312,890,781 - 35,000,000 won - 28) among the above 312,890,781 won among the above 312,890,781 won to the defendants who are the remaining sellers, and 312,890,781 won from February 1, 2007 to the 15th day after the date of the remainder payment of the contract of this case.

II. Related to claims for damages arising from the purchase of laundry machines

1. Basic facts

A. On July 24, 2006, the above non-party 7, who was in fact in charge of the plaintiffs' sales contract of each real estate of this case, was operating a laundry factory in the building of this case on behalf of the plaintiffs, and the contents of the sales contract were partially revised. At the time of the partial revision of the contents of the sales contract, the contract was concluded with the defendant 2 and 3 as follows (hereinafter "the contract for purchase and installation of laundry equipment of this case") to purchase laundry machinery to the same defendants and to install it in the building of this case.

- Matters concerning the purchase and installation of laundry equipment among the laundry statement of the instant agreement implementation -

4) Laundry machinery facilities (purchase and installation of laundry machinery) within the above land (referring to the land in this case) shall be subcontracted by Nonparty 7, the representative of △△ Trade, and the written agreement on construction details shall be set out separately.

5) All of the above facilities are to be installed within the extent not exceeding 2,000,000,000 won, and the payment of facility costs must be made from time to time under mutual agreement in accordance with the level of fairness.

6) If the purchaser is unable to directly operate due to unavoidable circumstances after the completion of the above facility, Nonparty 7 will operate the facility.

7) The above laundry site lease contract shall be in two years, the deposit shall be in KRW 300,000,000 for monthly rent of KRW 40,000,000, and the lease contract shall be in writing at the time of lease.

8) The above construction period shall be completed from July 25, 2006 to November 30, 2006, and the compensation of KRW 2,000,000 per day shall be paid if it is not completed.

B. Nonparty 7, who represented the Plaintiffs, presented a estimate of KRW 1,367,00,000 of the continuous laundry equipment, such as 2 laundry equipment, and laundry equipment, (hereinafter “instant estimate”) with the title of proposal equipment to Defendant 2 and 3 (excluding the import of part of laundry, etc., it is deemed that most of the equipment is purchased using the equipment. Afterward Nonparty 7, the above Nonparty 7 had presented an additional estimate, including KRW 130,00,000, to the same Defendants). The above Nonparty 7 commenced work for the purchase of the said laundry equipment with the consent of the said Defendants.

C. Meanwhile, Defendant 2 and 3 paid to the Plaintiffs a total of KRW 600,000,000,000 on July 24, 2006, and KRW 150,000,000 on August 1 of the same year, and KRW 50,000,000 on February 50, 200 of the same month, and KRW 200,000,000 on October 10 of the same month.

D. The Plaintiffs purchased laundry equipment in accordance with the instant laundry contract and installed it at the factory, which is the instant building. On November 3, 2006, Defendant 2 and 3 notified the Plaintiffs on the following grounds: (a) on November 3, 2006, Defendant 7 purchased 1 unit of laundry equipment at USD 95,000, and talked that the purchase price is USD 210,000; and (b) in the future, the Defendants would purchase laundry equipment on their own; and (c) as above, the Defendants notified the Plaintiffs that the remainder of the 600,000,000 which the Plaintiffs did not use as the price for the purchase of laundry equipment was returned.

【Partial Grounds for Recognition】 The facts without dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 8, 11, 14, 16 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul’s evidence Nos. 17, 19, 38, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs purchased laundry equipment from Defendant 2 and 3 and entered into a contract for the purchase and installation of laundry equipment of this case at the request of Defendant 2 and 3, and accordingly, on July 28, 2006, 130,000, 350,000 continuous equipment set forth on August 1 of the same year, 8 of the same year, 87,000,000, and 130,000,000, 400,000, 300,000,000, 130,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

B. Defendant 2 and 3’s assertion

The Defendants, like the Plaintiffs, purchased laundry machines and concluded a contract on vicarious purchase and installation of laundry machines with the contents of the above laundry machines installed in the instant building. Accordingly, the Defendants deposited KRW 600,000 in this account by allowing the Plaintiffs to purchase laundry machines and make the laundry machines in the name of △△ Trade operated by Plaintiff 1. While the Plaintiffs used the above money only for the purchase of laundry machines, the Plaintiffs spent part of the money at a place unrelated to the purchase of laundry machines, and the Plaintiffs arbitrarily consumed KRW 224,181,968 in the same call of the Defendants, which were asked for use. The Plaintiffs are liable for paying the above embezzled money to the said Defendants, and even if not, the Plaintiffs are liable for returning the above laundry machines to the said Defendants as unjust enrichment, and there is no additional reason for the Defendants’ claims for payment to the said Plaintiffs under the instant contract.

3. Determination

A. The nature of the instant laundry equipment purchase and installation contract

(1) According to the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 8 and Eul evidence Nos. 11, which can be seen as the whole purport of the pleadings, i.e., ① the purchase of laundry equipment and the installation of laundry equipment to non-party 7 and the expression “contract” and “construction,” such as the purchase and installation of laundry equipment to be subcontracted separately to non-party 7; ② the installation of laundry equipment within the scope of not exceeding 2 billion won at the time, and the payment of the installation cost was agreed to pay the laundry cost according to the progress of construction; ③ the purchase of laundry equipment and the installation of laundry equipment and the installation of laundry equipment in the event that the above laundry equipment are not operated due to unavoidable circumstances, the plaintiffs started to install laundry equipment within the scope of 300,000,000 won and the installation of laundry equipment and 300,000,000 each of the instant agreements.

B. Cancellation of the instant laundry equipment purchase and installation contract, and confirmation of the weather altitude

(1) Each entry in the evidence Nos. 11 and 79-1 and No. 19, which can be seen as comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings, i.e., the following circumstances: (i) Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 notified the Plaintiffs that they would cancel the contract for purchase and installation of the instant laundry equipment by expressing their intent to “the purchase of the said laundry equipment is directly intended” around November 3, 2006 when the Plaintiffs purchased and installed laundry equipment under the contract for purchase and installation of the instant laundry equipment; and (ii) accordingly, the Plaintiffs were currently released from the contract for purchase and installation of the instant laundry equipment by intention of the parties.

(2) In a case where the contract is terminated in the middle of the contract, the contractor shall pay to the contractor the amount equivalent to the amount of the fixed price until the contract is cancelled, and it shall be seen that the fixed price and the fixed price (hereinafter “the fixed price”) are long.

(3) In full view of the evidence Nos. 11, 14-1 through 8, 35-42, 79-1, 2, 18, 19-2, 27 through 30, and the purport of the whole pleadings in the testimony of Non-Party 8 of the Party concerned, the following facts may be acknowledged.

A) Nonparty 7, on the part of the plaintiffs, purchased and installed laundry equipment within KRW 2 billion on the instant building to Defendant 2 and 3, and suggested a written estimate of KRW 1,367,000,000 among the 2-years of continuous washing machines (14 square meters, continuous equipment 14 square meters, slots, slots, 5 motor vehicles) among the 2-years of continuous washing machines (350,000,000), and ② imported laundry (loak, Belgiumr, Belgiumr, and divers) including the purchase and installation of 320,00,000 won in total.

B) Afterwards, Nonparty 7 presented to Defendant 2 and 3 an additional estimate to purchase and install a tunnel air conditioners ( tunnel air conditioners, happy railers, and router) in KRW 130,000,000. Meanwhile, Nonparty 7 again agreed to purchase and install the above pay air conditioners at KRW 320,000,000, based on the instant estimate, and the Plaintiffs again agreed to purchase and install the said pay air conditioners to the same Defendants.

C) The above non-party 7 received KRW 200,000,000 from Defendant 2 and 3 for purchasing a series of equipment set forth in 215,000. From the end of July 2006, the non-party 7 sought to purchase a series of equipment set forth in 215,000 to the U.S., and sought that the non-party 9 and the non-party 10 were to purchase a set of continuous equipment set up in 215,000.

D) However, the above non-party 7 purchased the 1995 Continuous laundry (12 can be purchased in USD 95,000 with the same laundry as the laundry (12 can be purchased) from the non-party 9, and the non-party 7 may purchase the 50km laundry (2 can be purchased in USD 63,000 and KRW 48,000 each at the low price, although the laundry was made with the laundry, and the above non-party 9 sent to the above non-party 9 by facsimile a document stating that the 195 continuous laundry was purchased in KRW 215,00 and presented it to the defendant 2 and 3.

E) The Plaintiffs paid KRW 91,712,50 for the said 95,000 for the laundry machines, and paid KRW 5,69,800 for the laundry machines. On August 1, 2006, the Plaintiffs purchased KRW 7 for the 160,500,000 for the laundry machines from Nonparty 11 and paid KRW 2,935,00 for the transportation expenses, and tried to install the laundry machines of USD 95,000 for the above laundry machines and one set of continuous equipment. Defendant 2 and 3 opposed to the above 63,000 and 48,000 for the laundry machines, the Plaintiffs kept the said laundry machines.

F) Around July 28, 2006, the Plaintiffs purchased Dazart in KRW 55,000,000, and paid KRW 4,592,532 as repair and transportation expenses. Defendant 2 and 3 purchased new equipment through the Dong-young on the grounds that the said equipment cannot be used as it was worn out. Accordingly, the Dazart purchased by the Plaintiffs was not actually installed.

G) The Plaintiffs purchased at KRW 55,00,000 of the tunnel air conditioners and requested Defendant 2 and 3 to remove them at KRW 1,106,00 as transportation expenses, etc. while being installed in the instant building, and removed the tunnel air conditioners without any further installation.

H) On September 3, 2006 and September 8, 2006, Nonparty 7 visited the Dud Co., Ltd. of the Netherlands and sought to purchase equipment, such as Aler and Spool. Defendant 2 and 3 did not transfer the equipment cost. After that, Defendant 2 and 3 suspended all of the Plaintiffs’ purchase and preparation for installation. Meanwhile, around October 2006, Defendant 2 and 3 directly purchased and installed the Kamere Co., Ltd., which was about to be purchased by Nonparty 7 from the Kamere Co., Ltd. and around November 3, 2006. As seen above, around November 3, 2006, Defendant 2 and 3 did not believe the Plaintiffs, such as “the purchase of laundry machine directly would directly return money by November 10, 2006.”

I) Meanwhile, around October 2006, Defendant 2 and 3 demanded the Plaintiffs to provide the use of KRW 600,000,000. The Plaintiffs prepared a statement that they used KRW 409,071,232 for the purchase, repair, and transportation expenses of the aforementioned feet, 7th, tunnel air conditioners, and continuous equipment rent, and delivered it to the same Defendants.

(4) 일반적으로 수급인이 공사를 완성하지 못한 채 공사도급계약이 해제되어 기성고에 따른 공사비를 정산하여야 할 경우, 특별한 사정이 없는 한 그 공사비는 기성고 비율을 약정 공사대금에 적용하여 산정하여야 하고, 기성고 비율은 이미 완성된 부분에 소요된 공사비에다가 미시공 부분을 완성하는데 소요될 공사비를 합친 전체공사비 가운데 이미 완성된 부분에 소요된 비용이 차지하는 비율을 산정하여 확정하여야 하는 것이 원칙이라고 할 것이나( 대법원 1995.6.9. 선고 94다29300, 94다29317 판결 참조), 이 사안에서는 원고들이 구입 및 설치할 중고 세탁장비의 품목이나 사양 등이 정확히 특정되어 있지 아니하여 이 사건 세탁장비의 구입 및 설치계약{그 도급금액은 1,307,000,000원(=원래 도급금액 1,367,000,000원 + 추가된 터널피니셔 세트 130,000,000원 - 감액된 유가다 세트 190,000,000원(= 320,000,000원- 130,000,000원)}에서 미이행된 부분의 비용을 산정하기가 곤란하여 위와 같은 방법으로 이 사건 기성고 대금을 산정하기 불가능할 뿐만 아니라, 위 인정사실에서 본 바와 같이 원고들이 이 사건 세탁장비의 구입 및 설치계약에 따라 중고 세탁장비를 구입하여 수리·운반만을 하고 설치를 하지 않은 부분이 있는 점, 원고들이 피고 2, 3에게 구입하겠다고 한 연속세탁장비인 210,000불짜리 기계 대신 95,000불 세탁기기와 의진사로부터 구입한 밀러 건조기를 조합하여 연속세탁장비를 완성하였던 점, 위 연속세탁장비도 이 사건 견적서 상의 14칸짜리가 아닌 12칸짜리인 점 등의 사정을 감안하면 기이행된 부분의 비용도 산출하기 어려워 결국 이 사건 세탁장비의 구입 및 설치계약의 해제 당시의 기성고 대금을 확정하기 불가능한 상황에 있다고 할 것이므로(위 계약이 도급계약인 이상 위 피고들 주장대로 원고들에게 실비만 인정해 주는 것은 위 법리에 어긋나고, 위와 같은 사정으로 원고들 주장대로 원고들이 구입하여 피고 2, 3에게 인도한 세탁장비에 대한 이 사건 견적서 상의 금액만을 그대로 기성고로 받아들이기도 곤란하다), 원고들과 피고 2, 3 사이의 이 사건 세탁장비의 구입 및 설치계약의 체결경위, 원고들이 이 사건 세탁장비의 구입 및 설치계약을 이행해 나갔던 구체적 내용, 해제 당시까지 원고들이 세탁장비 구입에 사용한 비용, 원고들이 세탁장비의 운반, 수리 등에 사용한 비용, 원고들의 노력에 대한 대가로서의 이윤 등 제반 사정을 고려하여 이 사건 세탁장비의 구입 및 설치계약이 해제될 당시의 기성고 대금을 산정할 수밖에 없는바, 위 증거들과 위에서 인정한 사실에서 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 앞서본 바와 같이 원고들이 세탁장비를 구입하여 수리, 운반만 하고 설치를 하지 않은 부분이 있고, 피고 2, 3에게 구입하겠다고 한 연속세탁장비와 다른 규격과 가격의 제품을 산 후 건조기를 조합하여 완성하였던 점, ② 원고들이 위 세탁장비의 구입가격 자체만으로는 362,212,500원(= 95,000불짜리 세탁장비 91,712,500원 + 의진사 건조기 7대 160,500,000원 + 유가다세트 55,000,000원 + 터널피니셔 세트 55,000,000원)을 사용하였던 점 주33) , ③ 위 세탁장비 구입가격에다가 원고들의 운반비나 수리비 등으로 사용한 비용 14,333,332원(= 95,000불의 세탁기계 관련 상차비용 5,699,800원 + 소외 11 건조기 7대 관련 운반비용 등 2,935,000원 + 유가다세트 관련 수리 및 운반비용 4,592,532원 + 터널피니셔 관련 운송비 등 1,106,000원)을 합하면 원고들이 위 세탁장비들을 구입 및 설치하려고 사용한 비용은 376,545,832원(362,212,500원 +14,333,332원)에 이르는 점, ④ 위와 같은 총 비용에 해당하는 금액에다가 원고들의 세탁장비 구입 및 설치에 대한 대가인 이윤에 해당하는 금액도 기성고 대금 산정에서 포함되어야 할 것이고, 그 이윤은 20%정도로 봄이 상당한 점 등의 사정을 감안하면, 이 사건 기성고 대금은 위와 같이 원고들이 세탁장비들을 구입 및 설치하려고 사용한 실제 소요비용 376,545,832원에 이에 대한 20%의 이윤 75,309,166원(= 376,545,832원 × 20%)을 합한 451,185,998원(= 376,545,832원 + 75,309,166원)으로 봄이 상당하다고 할 것이다 주34) .

(c) Conclusion

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of the amount exceeding KRW 600,000 is without merit, on the premise that the amount exceeds KRW 600,000.

III. Related to the claim of consolation money

1. The plaintiffs' assertion

① The Defendants did not pay the purchase and sale balance of each of the instant real estate, and ② the Defendants unlawfully accused the Plaintiffs that they embezzled part of KRW 600,00,000 paid out of the purchase fund of laundry Machinery. ③ The Defendants suffered serious economic and mental losses by unfairly provisionally seizing the Plaintiffs’ property. The Defendants are liable to pay KRW 48,39,000 and delay damages in order to avoid the damages of the Plaintiffs.

2. Determination:

1) First of all, the plaintiffs' above assertion ① in a case where property damage was incurred due to health care or non-performance of contractual obligation, and thus, mental suffering that the contracting party suffered is serious to the extent that the compensation for property damage could not be compensated by itself (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu27249, Aug. 8, 1989, etc.). Thus, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to deem that there was such special circumstance with regard to the plaintiffs.

2) With respect to the plaintiffs' above assertion (2) in a public health room and criminal complaint case, in order for the complainant to be recognized as a tort, it must be intentional or gross negligence to recognize that the complaint was an abuse of the right (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da29481, Apr. 28, 2006, etc.). The plaintiffs' assertion in this part is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge the above.

3) In order for the plaintiffs to constitute tort due to health care, unfair lawsuit or unfair provisional seizure against the plaintiffs, the intent to cause damages to the other party without any reasonable reason at the time of the filing of the lawsuit is limited to the case where the complainant was filed or was at the time of the filing of the lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 79Da512 delivered on July 24, 1979). Thus, even if the defendants acknowledged the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendants had made unfair provisional seizure on the real estate owned by the plaintiffs, there is no evidence to prove that the defendants had made such provisional seizure solely for the purpose of causing damages to the plaintiffs, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit without merit.

IV. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuit of this case, the part of the claim of the plaintiff 1 against the plaintiff 2 and 3 is unlawful and dismissed. The plaintiffs' claim of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part which dismissed the lawsuit against the plaintiff 1's defendant 2 and 3 among the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, the appeal of the plaintiff 1 corresponding to the above part is dismissed, and the remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with the conclusion different from this, and it is so decided that the appeal of the plaintiffs and the defendants shall be partially accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as above. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judge Lee Han-ju (Presiding Judge)

1) Each registration under this table has been made in the same way on the instant land and previous buildings. The sequences on the registry concerning each of these registrations and on the registry concerning the previous buildings of this case are different, and the sequences on the registry concerning each of these registrations are to be indicated by the sequences on the registry of the instant land.

2) In order to take corrective measures as of February 15, 2005, notice of demand for corrective measures as of April 18, 2005, notice of demand for corrective measures as of July 14, 200, and notice of imposition of charge for compelling compliance as of July 14, 200, the phrase “extension” is used in combination with the expression “new construction” in each of the above corrective measures and notice of demand. In the subsequent procedure, the plaintiffs removed two previous buildings (a.b. part 1,989mm.) and used the phrase “new construction” in the judgment that buildings of a size equivalent to 2,005m2 are different from the existing building ledger.

3) As indicated below, the special agreement among the certificate No. 2 No. 2 states “the completion of building permission”, and even based on the certificate No. 31 (the certificate No. 5) submitted by the Defendants, Nonparty 5, who was in charge of the sales contract at the time, had removed the remainder of the building disposal facilities and the building No. 1,300 square meters (around 602 square meters) which are unnecessary for the Plaintiffs, a seller, to use as a brick factory and a building no. 1,989 square meters (around 602 square meters).

4) Based on the copy of the register of the land of this case, the registration of creation of a neighboring maximum debt amount of KRW 970,000,000 for the No. 8 of the No. 8 of the No. 10 of the No. 10 of the No. 10 of the B, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 230,000,000 for the maximum debt amount of KRW 11 of the No. 11 of the B, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 200,000 for the No. 1

Note 5) The same note 4 is applicable.

(6) Defendant 2 and 3 deposited KRW 700,000,000 in the above passbook, but collected KRW 25,000,000 on August 4, 2006, and thereby, the amount that the Defendants paid to the Plaintiffs as an intermediate payment was KRW 675,00,000.

Note 7) The actual usage details were 98,730,90 won in ancientyang-si and 5,500,000 won in East East-si, 130,000 won in East-dong Electrical, 65,000,000 won in Sungdong-si and 25,000,000 won in Sungdong-si and 25,000 won in Sungdong-si, and 25,000,000 won in total, 574,230,900 won in total, and 10,000,000 won in total to the Plaintiffs at the time of transfer to the Plaintiffs. At the time of transfer to the Plaintiff’s single head of Tong-si, 769,100 won in total (675,000,000 won - 574,230,900 won - - 1,000,000 won in the above gold-si under the name of the Plaintiff 16.

8) Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 8 and Eul evidence Nos. 6, the part of the above KRW 300,000,000 is agreed to purchase from the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 2 and 3, and even if the same defendants did not change the purchase price, it is deemed that they were falsely stated as if they reduced the transfer tax amount by 300,000,000 won.

9) The Plaintiffs also asserted that, in the Seoul Western District Court 2007Gahap8785 (this Court 2010Na23069, hereinafter “the separate lawsuit of this case”) against the same Defendants, they completed new buildings (which expressed that new construction is an extension of existing buildings, but which seems to be an extension of existing buildings), they talk with the same Defendants, and that they completed the building at the expense of the Plaintiffs.

10) However, with respect to the display of the building in this case, the party concerned decided to enter the size, structure, purpose of use, etc. of the newly constructed building on the surface of the building.

(11) However, on January 5, 2007, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants prepared a sales contract by dividing land and a building into land and a building on January 5, 2007, and entered the down payment in the form of an intermediate payment on January 5, 2007 as payment on January 10, 2007.

12) In light of the fact that a sales contract-related special agreement on June 12, 2006 or on the 13th of the same month was concluded on June 2, 2006, a bank loan was succeeded to by a purchaser and settled the remainder in the balance, and that the remainder was KRW 600,000,000,000 other than bank loans, the Defendants decided to accept and settle the collateral obligation of Ssung and Symup at the time of the remainder payment.

Note 13) Based on the certified copy of the register on the instant land, A is No. 60 and 61.

Note 14) The Plaintiffs asserted that, in addition to these amounts, the Defendants paid KRW 25,00,000 in addition to the registration of seizure of Sungdong Tax Department, the Defendants did not pay the amount of KRW 25,00,000,000. However, on the 9th day for pleading of the Party

Note 15) As a matter of the right to collateral security of bamboo No. 15, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Plaintiff paid KRW 82,000,000 to the Plaintiffs in terms of the aforementioned cost of waste disposal, and that the Defendants paid KRW 82,00,000 to the Plaintiffs for the registration of collateral security in the name of the deceased No. Hyup did not have any collateral obligation.

16) Nonparty 1 filed an application for compulsory auction on each of the instant real estates on the basis of the claim amounting to KRW 200,000,000 against Plaintiff 1 and completed the registration of the compulsory auction decision.

Note 17) The instant separate lawsuit is the separate lawsuit.

18) According to the construction permit report on April 13, 2007, a single-story factory with a building area of 1,85.78 square meters and a total floor area of 1,85.78 square meters. A building newly constructed on March 13, 2008 by the Defendants is one-story factory with a building area of 1,853 square meters and one-story factory with a total floor area of 2,243 square meters.

19) The Defendants make a counterclaim by asserting that they have each of the following claims against the Plaintiffs. Under the following, they first examine each of the claims asserted by the Defendants, and the scope of the recognized claims and the scope of the claims to be extinguished against the Defendants against the Defendants should be collected and examined together in the following sub-paragraph (c).

Note 20) Paragraph 4 of the Special Agreement of this case

(1) The river management agency may collect occupation and use fees and other charges for the use of land from a person who has obtained permission for occupation and use of rivers.

Note 22) Although the Defendants expressed that they were unjust enrichment claims, their nature appears to be the claim for reimbursement to return the amount paid by the Defendants on behalf of the Plaintiffs.

Note 23) The Defendants claimed this as the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment, but according to the Defendants’ assertion, it appears that the amount of reimbursement or contract is the agreed amount.

Note 24) The Defendants sought this as the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment, but according to the Defendants’ assertion, it seems that they have the nature of the amount of reimbursement.

Note 25) At the 9th day of the trial of the parties, the parties did not consider the period of reimbursement and the damages for delay in relation to the offset and calculated a set-off only with the principal.

Note 26): Provided, That in the case of Plaintiff 1, the part which was rejected above must be excluded from his claim amount.

Note 27) Where there are several obligees or obligors under Article 408 (Relation to Section 408) of the Civil Act, each obligee or obligor has rights and bears obligations in equal rates unless there is any special declaration of intention.

Note 28) Of the lawsuits against Defendants 2 and 3 by Plaintiff 1, the part dismissed as above due to its illegality is KRW 35,000,000 for each corresponding amount against Defendants 2 and 3.

(29) There is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiffs, other than Nonparty 7, and Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, are the parties to the instant laundry equipment purchase and installation contract. According to the terms of the agreement on the purchase and installation contract of laundry equipment, Nonparty 7 agreed on the purchase and installation of laundry equipment. However, Nonparty 7 agreed on the purchase and installation of laundry equipment to Defendant 2 and 3 for the Plaintiffs who are the parties to the instant laundry equipment purchase and installation contract.

(30) Defendant 2 and 3 asserted that only an agency part of the instant laundry machine purchase contract and installation contract would extinguish its validity in the future. However, the aforementioned Defendants notified the aforementioned contents, and subsequently refused to purchase and install the Plaintiffs’ laundry equipment. As such, the Defendants are deemed to have cancelled the entire laundry equipment purchase and installation contract with the Plaintiffs.

Note 31) Of the estimates in this case, 5 K 14 K 14 K, 5 K 10 K K 10 K K 10 K K 10 K 10 K 10 K K 10 K 10 K.

Note 32) Defendant 2 and 3 asserted that the above KRW 409,071,232 should be excluded from KRW 600,00,00,00 paid to the plaintiffs, and KRW 190,928,768 (= KRW 600,00,000 - KRW 409,071,232) would be - 409,000 in terms of personnel expenses, and KRW 26,253,200 in terms of personnel expenses, and KRW 224,181,968 in addition to these expenses (= KRW 190,928,768 + + KRW 7,00,000 + KRW 26,253,200 in terms of personnel expenses.

Note 33) Since the laundry equipment was purchased with Defendant 2 and 3’s funds, its ownership is against the same Defendants.

Note 34) In light of the fact that the value-added tax is a single contract, the value-added tax should not be separately considered.

Note 35) In addition, the Plaintiffs asserted that the five of the seven of the shackers purchased from the physician’s death was installed in the instant series of washing machines, and that if the remaining two of the shackers were installed in the shacker, the Plaintiffs purchased and installed 87,00,000 won in the shacker sets, and 30HP in the compacter box, which does not exist in drawings, but there is no evidence that the purchase and installation of the shacker was made in return for a separate amount.