1. The Defendants transferred each of the claims listed in the separate sheet to Nonparty Republic of Korea on September 9, 2003.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 10, 2003, the network I obtained approval for the new establishment of a factory for seven parcels, such as Asan City J, K, L, L, M, N,O, P (i.e., registration conversion into Q Q) from the mayor of Asan, and the same year.

7. 14. Farmland creation cost was paid in KRW 63,025,70.

B. On September 9, 2003, the network I concluded a contract to sell a total of six parcels of the above land, including J, K, L, M, Q and R, to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

C. On November 8, 2005, the network I prepared a written confirmation that it transferred the Plaintiff the substitute afforestation cost of KRW 2,011,050 paid by I, and the farmland creation cost of KRW 63,025,70 to the Plaintiff, along with various rights such as authorization and permission on the land subject to sale at the time of the instant sales contract.

The network I died on August 3, 2007, and the Defendants, as the inheritors of the network I, each share of inheritance is Defendant B 3/13, Defendant F, E, D, H 2/13, Defendant C, and/or G 1/13.

E. On March 21, 2016, the Asan City revoked the approval of the establishment of a new factory on the ground that a long-term factory is not established for the land to be traded in the instant case. On November 28, 2017, the Asan City decided to refund KRW 63,025,700 of the farmland preservation charges paid by I due to the revocation of approval of the establishment of a new factory on November 28, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the above facts, upon revocation of the new construction approval of the factory of this case, the payment claim for the farmland preservation charges accrued, and the above claim should be reverted to the Plaintiff as the content of the sales contract of this case. Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to implement the procedure for giving notice of assignment of claims to the Plaintiff on September 9, 2003, with respect to the claims indicated in the separate sheet, which correspond to their respective shares of inheritance among the above payment claim for the refund to the Republic of Korea.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.