Defendant B, C, and D jointly share KRW 50,00,000 to the Plaintiff, as well as the year from February 27, 2016 to April 11, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant B and C are the children of Nonparty H, Defendant D is the spouse of Nonparty H, and Defendant E, F, and G are the children of Nonparty 1, the birth of Defendant E, F, and G.

B. On May 16, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendants to purchase 11,008 square meters of Jin-si (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Defendants on the following terms: (a) on the same day, the Plaintiff wired the down payment of KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant D’s account designated by H.

The purchase price: 932,400,000 won: 100,000 won for intermediate payment at the time of the contract: 200,000,000 won for intermediate payment at the time of the contract, and the balance of payment on July 15, 2014: 632,40,000 won for the above real estate sales contract at the time of the payment on October 15, 2014 is not a conditional contract for the permission for a factory or other other purposes, but the buyer must pay the intermediate payment at the date of the payment on the part payment and pay on the remainder on the date of the payment on the remainder.

Provided, That in extenuating circumstances, the date may be changed after consultation between the seller and the purchaser.

C. On July 15, 2014, H refused to receive the intermediate payment from the Plaintiff and did not return to the said certified judicial scrivener office.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff intended to remit the intermediate payment of KRW 200,000 to Defendant D’s account, but H did not file an application for refusal to receive the intermediate payment.

On November 5, 2015, the Plaintiff sent content certification (Evidence A6) to H, and notified the Defendants of the rescission of the instant sales contract on the grounds of the Defendants’ breach of contract.

E. On November 13, 2015, H sent the certificate of content (No. 3-1) to the Plaintiff on November 13, 2015, and argued to the effect that the instant sales contract had been null and void, by strongly asserting the issue of change in the water supply route and the payment method that was not discussed at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and that the instant sales contract was responsible for the Plaintiff

F. The Plaintiff’s instant case on December 3, 2015.