A. The Plaintiff’s children are E, and E and Defendant D were married between E’s father and Defendant D’s children (current divorce). Defendant B and C are Defendant D’s children.

B. On January 3, 2005, Defendant D purchased G miscellaneous land 2,650 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from F on the ground of the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”) and newly constructed a building on the ground, referring to land and buildings, and hereinafter “instant land and buildings”). A title trust agreement was concluded between E and E, which intends to make the registration name of the instant land and building E in the future, around 2004. Accordingly, around May 2005, Defendant D completed the registration of ownership transfer and preservation of the instant land and building E.

C. In addition, between Defendant D and E, around 2005, Defendant D agreed to conduct the business of recycling wastes, etc. under the name of Defendant D with the trade name of “H” in the instant land and buildings.

E, however, borrows KRW 100,000,000 from I to secure its loan obligations without Defendant D’s consent.

7. On May 30, 201, the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage-holder I, the maximum debt amount of 300,000,000 won was completed on the instant land and building. On May 30, 201, using the fact that the procedures for reporting under the Wastes Control Act have been fulfilled under the name of E, Defendant D filed a report on the suspension of business of a person who reported waste recycling at the time of industrialization without Defendant D’s consent. On November 30, 2011, Defendant was indicted for embezzlement and interference with business from the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office on charges of embezzlement and interference with business on July 27, 2012 and was sentenced to a judgment of conviction for eight months.

E. Accordingly, E appealed with Suwon District Court 2012No3676, and the appellate court determined that the part of the building of this case was embezzled due to changes in indictment, and the appellate court reached an agreement with Defendant D in light of the fact that it was agreed with Defendant D.