1. The Defendants are 5% per annum from October 23, 2012 to July 24, 2013 to each Plaintiff, respectively.

1. On August 3, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendants on August 3, 2012, and entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff for KRW 1,984/2,135, which is the Plaintiff’s ownership, for KRW 96 million, and received KRW 10 million as the down payment. The buyer was entered into a sales contract as E, the Defendants’ children.

On September 20, 2012, the Defendants paid KRW 86 million to the Plaintiff with the purchase price, and on the same day, the said land owned by F, which is another equity right holder, with the land of KRW 151 square meters in Gyeonggi-gun D, and G paddy-gun, with the land of KRW 1984 square meters owned by the Plaintiff, the registration of partition of co-owned property was completed, and after the registration of partition was completed, the registration of ownership transfer was completed to E with respect to the said land owned by the

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 5-1 and Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff agreed with the defendants to change the price from KRW 160,00 to KRW 200,000 on a flat basis after the conclusion of the sales contract, the defendants should pay the difference amounting to KRW 24 million (=600 square x 40,00) from the existing sales price.

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged in accordance with the entry of Gap evidence 1, the plaintiff and defendant C as the result of the personal examination of the plaintiff and defendant C, and the purport of the whole pleadings, namely, ① the defendants promises to pay up to October 22, 2012 to the plaintiff 24 million won as the title "a tea certificate" before completing the registration of ownership transfer following the sale of this case on September 20, 2012.

“The document is prepared and prepared (the Defendant C prepared in the name of the Defendants, but the Defendant’s portion is deemed to have the power of representation). ② The Defendants asserted that, with respect to the above loan certificates, the land was sold and sold, but the Plaintiff demanded as a material for pre-treatment and subsequent settlement of construction costs, that the Plaintiff would incur soil at KRW 24 million within one month. However, the loan certificate is only the content that the Defendants would pay the Plaintiff money.