A. D is a person who actually operates the defendant while holding the defendant's shares in excess of 50%.

B. The Defendant obtained a construction permit on September 2008 and filed a sales report on November 2009 for the construction of an office building in Daegu as its head office, which is a company with its head office located in Nam-si E.

Accordingly, construction works of officetels have been carried out, and the construction has been suspended as the Defendant failed to procure construction costs during the year 2010.

Since then, around 2011, the Defendant was selected as a contractor for construction of treatment corporation, and resumed construction of officetels, such as obtaining permission for design change of officetels. From November 10, 201, from the point of view of commencing sale again, the sale was commenced again and the construction was commenced again on December 15, 201, and finally, around July 2013, the construction of officetels (10 stories and five stories above the ground) stated in the “Indication of the Building 1” in the attached list was completed.

C. On the other hand, on January 16, 2012, Plaintiff A entered into a contract (Evidence 5) with the Defendant (at the time, the said officetel was entrusted to the Clucco Asset Trust Co., Ltd., and the Defendant was in the truster’s position) to be supplied with the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant officetels”) in KRW 126.7 million (Evidence 5).

On the other hand, D around that time delivered the down payment of KRW 12.67 million under the above supply contract to the Plaintiffs through F, the president, and the Plaintiff A sent the down payment of KRW 1,267,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

After the preparation of the supply contract, D, on March 28, 2012, stating the purport that “to transfer the instant officetel without any separate expense” to the Plaintiffs, following the written confirmation No. 3, hereinafter “the instant written confirmation”).

was prepared and proposed.

However, the Defendant asserted that the part B and A in the instant confirmation document did not correspond to D.

However, the witness D himself.