1. The defendant shall state each of the plaintiffs on the "mark of land subject to sale" in the annexed sheet of purchase and sale of each land.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant delegated the authority to dispose of each of the above lands to K (hereinafter referred to as “K”) as the owner of L 1,986 square meters of forest land, M 1,986 square meters of forest land, and the owner of M 1,986 square meters of forest land, and to O via N.

B. On July 1, 2004, from around September 4, 2004 to September 4, 2004, theO sold 200 square meters (662 square meters) among L forest to the Plaintiff A, each of which is 100 square meters (331 square meters) to Plaintiff B, E, I, C, and D, 300 square meters (93 square meters) out of M forest to Plaintiff F, 200 square meters (662 square meters) to the Plaintiff G, and 100 square meters (631 square meters) to the Plaintiff H, respectively.

C. On December 20, 2004, the area of 1,986 square meters of L forest was 2,010 square meters of P forest, and the area of 1,986 square meters of M forest was 2,032 square meters of Q forest and Q forest, respectively.

Accordingly, among P, the remaining parts of 24 square meters and Q2 forest were sold to the Plaintiffs, and O sold the said land to Plaintiff I on December 24, 2004.

Ultimately, the plaintiffs' land trading date, land subject to purchase and sale, and share of land subject to purchase and sale were as shown in the annexed land sale statement.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, 4-10 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, barring any other circumstances, the Defendant should implement the procedure for registration of ownership transfer for each of the reasons of sale on each of the land indicated in the column for indication of land subject to sale and purchase in the separate sheet on each of the land.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant defense that the plaintiffs cannot respond to their claims until they receive full payment of the purchase price from the plaintiffs.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 8, the defendant collected KRW 18,050,050,000 prior to the division (the actual purchaser is N, S, and the defendant seems to be the trustee) and borrowed KRW 700,00,000 from Jinjin Agricultural Cooperative in order to raise the purchase price, and as a security, the defendant secured the aforementioned amount.