1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s each of the Plaintiffs’ KRW 14,00,000 and its related amount shall be from October 8, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiffs are the third children of D, who died around December 15, 1997, and the defendant is the husband of D's second husband of D's net F.

B. On March 25, 2006, the Defendant sold to M the entire 1,438 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to G in Sung-si (hereinafter “instant land”), which was owned by M as a broker of L. However, after completing the inheritance registration procedure from D, the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership was to be implemented on the designated person by M.

C. On June 28, 2006, the plaintiffs and D's fourth son H completed the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for each of 1/3 shares of the land of this case due to the inheritance by agreement or division.

Around July 2006, the Plaintiffs: (a) delegated the Defendant with the authority to dispose of the shares owned by the Plaintiffs among the instant land; (b) accordingly, Plaintiff B’s 1/3 shares out of the instant land were transferred to I on October 7, 2008; (c) Plaintiff A’s 1/3 shares were transferred to J on the same day; and (d) H’s 1/3 shares were transferred to M on September 7, 201.

around that time, the Defendant received KRW 87,000,000 in total from the purchase price of the entire land of this case.

(C) / [Ground for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 3, and 7 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The defendant is dissatisfied with the purport that the appeal of this case was filed by the plaintiffs' attorney, contrary to the plaintiffs' intentions. However, in full view of the entries and the purport of the whole pleadings, it is recognized that the plaintiffs entrusted the performance of the lawsuit of this case to the attorney of this case, and that the above assertion is without merit.

3. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In light of the above facts of recognition as the cause of the claim, the defendant did not refund the sales price received after selling shares owned by the plaintiffs among the land of this case to the plaintiffs, and thus is equivalent to each sales price without any legal ground.