1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall deliver to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) the building indicated in the separate sheet.

2...

1. Determination on the main claim

A. Determination as to the cause of the claim: (a) the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Nonparty D to purchase, on May 30, 2016, the building indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by Nonparty D for KRW 160,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); (b) following the completion of the registration of ownership transfer as to the instant building; (c) the fact that the Defendants occupied the instant building is either a dispute between the parties, or that the Defendants owned the instant building together with the overall purport of the entries and arguments in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2, and all pleadings.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants who possess the building of this case have the duty to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiffs who are its owners.

B. The Defendants asserted the invalidity of double selling as to the Defendants’ assertion. Before the instant sales contract, the Defendants already agreed to purchase the instant building between Defendant B and Nonparty E, the Plaintiff’s father, and accordingly, they jointly purchased the instant building in the name of Nonparty F and Defendant B from March 9, 2016. However, the Defendants asserted that the instant sales contract is null and void, since the instant building was purchased in the name of Nonparty F and Defendant B, and that the instant building was jointly purchased from March 9, 2016, under the intent of both the Plaintiff and Nonparty F and the Plaintiff to read the existing facilities and the soup business profit, and the ownership was transferred to the Plaintiff under the name of the Plaintiff, and accordingly, the registration under the Plaintiff’s name is also void.

The evidence presented by the Defendants alone alone was in collusion with E and F by the seller to commit a breach of trust against the Defendant B.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff actively participated, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, considering the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 14 as well as the overall purport of the arguments, Defendant B and F entered into a contract with Defendant B and F to purchase the instant real estate from D on March 9, 2016, but paid KRW 20,000,000 on the day of the contract.