The Defendants are limited to the sale on February 26, 2018 with respect to one-half share of 674 square meters before Pyeongtaek-si and E.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 17, 2017, Defendant B acquired ownership of 674 square meters prior to Pyeongtaek-si E (hereinafter “instant land”).

On February 1, 2017, the Plaintiff purchased 1/2 shares of the instant land from Defendant B in KRW 175.9 million, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on February 9, 2017.

B. On February 26, 2018, the Plaintiff sold 1/2 shares of the instant land to the Defendants at KRW 175.9 million (on June 13, 2017, KRW 35 million, the intermediate payment of KRW 30 million, the intermediate payment of KRW 30 million, the intermediate payment of KRW 55 million, and the payment on April 26, 2018, KRW 50 million, the remainder payment of KRW 55,90,000,000).

The Plaintiff was paid KRW 15 million from the Defendant as part of the down payment and intermediate payment, but did not receive the remainder totaling KRW 60.9 million.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 7 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the remainder and the remainder 60.9 million won, even if they were to be in accordance with the sales contract.

The Defendants asserted that the aforementioned obligation to pay gold and any balance should be made at the same time with the Plaintiff’s obligation to register the transfer of ownership of the land of this case. As such, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 60,90,000 to the Plaintiff with respect to the share of 1/2 of the instant land from the Plaintiff on February 26, 2018.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff sought payment of delayed damages for the above KRW 60,90,000. However, since the Defendants’ remaining payment obligation is concurrently in compliance with the Plaintiff’s duty of registration of transfer of ownership, the Plaintiff’s claim for delayed damages is rejected.

3. Conclusion, the claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.