1. At the same time, the defendant receives KRW 2,425,00,000 from the plaintiffs, and at the same time, written in the separate list to the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 27, 2016, the Plaintiffs entered into a sales contract with the Defendant that “The purchase price of each of the instant real estate owned by the Defendant shall be KRW 3.95 billion, and the down payment shall be KRW 310 million on the date of the contract, the intermediate payment shall be KRW 1 billion on June 23, 2016, and the remainder KRW 2.425 billion on August 11, 2016 shall be paid in redemption with the certificate of ownership transfer registration, and the remainder KRW 215 million shall be substituted by the Plaintiffs’ acquisition of the obligation to refund the deposit from the Defendant to the lessees of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 310 million on the date of the contract, and the intermediate payment of KRW 1 billion on June 16, 2016, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence (including additional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), purport of whole pleadings

2. The judgment of this Court

A. According to the facts acknowledged by Paragraph (1) of the judgment on the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to implement each of the following procedures for the transfer of ownership on one-half share of each of the instant real estate on May 27, 2016.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) As to the Defendant’s assertion of anti-social legal act, the 6/10 shares out of each of the instant real estate held in title trust with the Defendant’s wife D, and even if the Defendant knew of the fact of title trust with the Plaintiffs after the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Defendant actively participated in disposing of the said shares in the future, and thus, the instant sales contract constitutes anti-social juristic act, and thus, is null and void.

B. The mere statement of Eul evidence No. 1 alone is insufficient to recognize that Eul held a title trust with the defendant or actively participated in the defendant's act of breach of trust with respect to the 6/10 of each real estate of this case.