1. The defendant is based on the sale on June 16, 2004 with respect to 2,479 square meters prior to Incheon Seo-gu, Incheon.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 16, 2004, the Plaintiff and the Defendant purchased the balance of the purchase price from the Defendant and at the same time entered into a contract under which the Plaintiff would deliver documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”) at KRW 225,00,000 (the contract amount of KRW 23,000,000 shall be paid at the time of the contract, and the intermediate payment of KRW 22,00,000 shall be paid at the time of June 18, 2004; and the remainder of KRW 180,000,000 shall be paid at the time of June 30, 2004).

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay the remainder of KRW 180,00,000 as agreed upon at the time of the instant sales contract to the Defendant’s D Depository a loan obligation of KRW 70,000,000 and KRW 10,000 as to the Defendant’s lease deposit repayment obligation for the instant factories on the instant land, respectively, and to pay the remainder of KRW 100,000,000 by offsetting the Plaintiff’s loan obligation of KRW 100,000 borrowed from the Defendant as the construction cost for the instant building owned by E.

C. The Plaintiff paid 22,00,000 won of the down payment around June 16, 2004 according to the instant sales contract, and 23,000,000 won of the intermediate payment around June 18, 2004, respectively, to the Defendant.

Meanwhile, the instant land was land within a land transaction contract permission zone designated by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport as of November 20, 2002, but the designation of the permission zone was revoked on May 24, 2013.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including each number), fact inquiry results against the head of Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff 1 paid the full purchase price to the Defendant in accordance with the instant sales contract, and the instant sales contract became final and conclusive as the designation of the land transaction contract permission zone for the instant land was cancelled after the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and thus, the Defendant was the Plaintiff.