2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On April 30, 2012, the Defendant: (a) agreed on April 30, 2012 to transfer the ownership of the instant officetel to the maritime construction industry (hereinafter “instant agreement”); and (b) the Plaintiff received the right to claim for ownership transfer registration under the instant agreement from the maritime construction industry as a payment for the construction price as to the instant officetel’s obligation to pay the construction price (hereinafter “instant officetel”); and (c) the Plaintiff received the right to claim for ownership transfer registration under the instant agreement from the maritime construction industry.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on April 30, 2012 with respect to the instant officetel to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) On the premise that the instant agreement was concluded between the Defendant and the Maritime Construction Industry, the Plaintiff asserted that the right to claim for ownership transfer registration under the instant agreement was acquired from the Maritime Construction Industry. Therefore, in order to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s assertion is examined as to (i) the fact that the instant agreement was concluded between the Defendant and the Maritime Construction Industry; (ii) the fact that the Plaintiff acquired the right to claim ownership transfer registration against the Defendant of the Maritime Construction Industry based on the instant agreement; and (iii) the fact that the Maritime Construction Industry notified the Plaintiff of the fact of transfer or received the consent. (ii) First, whether

The defendant denies the authenticity of each of the above documents, including the identity of each of the defendant's stamp image of each of the contract for sale in lots (No. 1) and written performance (No. 2) submitted by the plaintiff, and thus, the plaintiff is responsible to prove the authenticity of the documents.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that each of the above documents was actually established, but rather, in full view of the result of appraiser B’s seal appraisal and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant in the above contract for sale.