A. On October 16, 201, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) decided to hold an extraordinary general meeting on October 16, 201 and sell real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant resolution”).

B. On June 11, 2012, C entered into a sales contract of KRW 40,000,000 for the instant real estate with the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) as the representative of the Plaintiff, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Defendant’s name on July 17, 2012.

Around July 17, 2012, the Defendant paid KRW 40,000,000 to the account in the name of C.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, No. 1, No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The following facts are acknowledged according to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4, as to the cause of the claim:

In other words, D et al. asserted that the resolution of the special meeting of this case was null and void, and filed against the plaintiff a provisional disposition of suspending the effect of the resolution of the general meeting of this case with the Chungcheong District Court 2012Kahap183, and the above court made a decision of acceptance on August 24, 2012.

In addition, D et al. filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff (representative C) to nullify the resolution of the general meeting of a clan as the Chungcheong District Court Branch Branch of 2012Kahap122, and the said court rendered a judgment that the resolution of the general meeting of this case is null and void on May 2, 2013.

On April 23, 2014, C filed an appeal under the name of the Plaintiff, but E newly elected as the representative of the Plaintiff withdraws the appeal under the name of the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, in the Daejeon High Court (Cheongju) 2013Na806 case, the court rendered a declaration of termination of the lawsuit on August 19, 2014, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on September 12, 2014.

According to the above facts, the sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for the real estate of this case is not a legitimate resolution of the general meeting of clans.