(a) As to each real property listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Schedule 1, Defendant AA and SB:

B. As to the real estate stated in attached list No. 1

In relation to the procedure for the restoration registration of the provisional disposal of the real estate No. 00000 received on July 19, 1997, which was completed on June 20, 2013 and the cancellation registration was completed on June 20, 2013, each declaration of consent will be made.

2. The Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant KimD, KimE, FF Loans, privateG, National Health Insurance Corporation, Ansan-si, and Korea are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant AA, SB, and JeonCC shall be borne by the Plaintiff, respectively. The part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant AA, SB, JeonCC, the Plaintiff and Defendant KimD, KimE, KimE, FF lending, privateG, National Health Insurance Corporation, Ansan, and Korea.

4. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2, Defendant KimD, KimE, sexual partner loan, and privateGG, the Defendant National Health Insurance Corporation will express its intention of each acceptance regarding the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2, as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, the Defendant Ansan-si, the Republic of Korea, as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, and the cancellation registration as of June 20, 2013, which was completed by the receipt No. 00000 on July 19, 197, by the same registry office No. 0000 on the receipt of the provisional injunction No. 10000 on July 19, 197.

A. On July 19, 1997, the Plaintiff completed the provisional injunction registration (hereinafter referred to as the "provisional injunction registration of this case") as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of this case and paragraph (2) of the separate sheet) on July 19, 1997, as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 of this case, and the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the separate sheet No. 2 of this case, and the real estate of this case 1 and 2 of this case, collectively) No. 1 of this case.

B. On June 17, 2013, the largest H withdrawn the application for provisional disposition of this case as the representative director of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the executing court entrusted the cancellation registration of the provisional disposition of this case to the Suwon District Court, and the cancellation registration of provisional disposition of this case was completed on June 20, 2013 by the receipt No. 00000.

(5) With respect to the registration of the transfer of 50/10 of the shares (3,460/10) in the Seoul High Court on August 16, 2013 and the registration of the establishment of 40/100 of the aggregate amount of 50/100 shares (No. 27, 000) in the Seoul High Court on September 27, 2013, No. 2050/10 of the aggregate amount of 50/10, No. 4067/100 of the aggregate amount of 50/10, No. 2060/10 of the aggregate amount of 50/10, No. 3060/10 of the aggregate amount of 50/10, No. 4067/10 of the aggregate amount of 50/10, and No. 307/106 of the aggregate amount of 50/10,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Inasmuch as it is confirmed that there is no serious defect in the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders of the Plaintiff who appointed the largest H as the representative director, the application for provisional disposition of this case filed by the largest H is null and void by a person who is not qualified as the representative director of the Plaintiff, and accordingly, the court of execution’s entrustment of cancellation registration of provisional disposition of this case also has no validity. Accordingly, the Defendants, after the cancellation registration of provisional disposition of this case was completed, have the duty of substantive law to accept the procedure for the registration of restoration of provisional disposition

3. Determination as to claims against Korea by Defendant KimD, KimE, FF Loans, privateG, National Health Insurance Corporation, Ansan-si, and Korea

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 9 (including additional numbers), the above court rendered a judgment that "5 times, including a general meeting of shareholders as of January 10, 2013, where the highest HH was appointed as the representative director, and the board of directors of the plaintiff" on February 7, 2014. Accordingly, although the appeal was dismissed by the plaintiff (including the Seoul High Court 2015Da0000), the plaintiff's appeal was again dismissed, but the appeal was dismissed, the most representative director of the plaintiff's general meeting of shareholders is not entitled to represent the plaintiff. Accordingly, the court of execution did not revoke the provisional disposition registration of this case on January 10, 2013, since it did not have the right to represent the plaintiff, who was appointed as the representative director of the general meeting of shareholders of the plaintiff as of January 10, 2013.

B. However, since the registration is a system that discloses the actual relationship of rights and duties as a public notice, if it conforms to the substantive relationship, it cannot be claimed for registration of cancellation (see Supreme Court Decision 85Meu2203, May 26, 1987).

In light of the above legal principles, the provisional disposition decision of this case was made to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer registration pursuant to the sales contract concluded on July 10, 1997 between the plaintiff and the foundation of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate subject to disposal"), since the plaintiff or the former LL applied for the permission of disposal of the real estate of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate subject to disposal"), since the plaintiff or the plaintiff failed to perform the conditions stipulated in the above disposal permission by November 2, 1997, and the disposal permission of this case was invalidated [the plaintiff's claim for disposal permission of this case or the plaintiff's new disposal permission (or alteration permission) of this case's real estate of this case, as seen in paragraph 12 of the above legal relations, and it cannot be objectively invalidated between the plaintiff and the foundation of this case's non-existence of disposal permission of this case's real estate of this case, as well as the plaintiff's new disposal registration of this case's real estate of this case's non-existence of ownership registration of this case's real property of this case.

1) On February 10, 1997, the Foundation applied for permission for disposal to the head of ○○ Educational Director, a supervisory department, on April 15, 1997, in order to sell real estate registered as basic property to the Plaintiff for the purpose of normalizing the Foundation.

2) On May 2, 1997, the superintendent of ○○ City Office of Education, a competent authority, permits the instant foundation to dispose of the real estate subject to disposal, and (1) the effective period of the said permitted matters shall be six months from the date of permission, and (2) if the pertinent laws and regulations provide that the said permitted matters should be authorized and permitted, the provisions of the relevant laws and regulations shall govern; and (3) under the premise that the instant foundation shall secure at least 3,189,475,200 won in total, including the amount of the permitted sale and the amount of compensation for damages, etc. to the ○○ Office of Education, and (4) the contract documents related to the above permitted matters shall be deemed as a valid contract document in the presence of the public official of the ○○ Office of Education, in which the seal impression of the instant foundation and the official seal of the office of education are affixed, and (5) the management of the amount related to the above permitted matters shall be accompanied by the opinion of the ○ Office of Education and the Seoul Office of Education, if any other related documents are specified.

3) On July 10, 1997, the Plaintiff purchased real estate subject to disposal from the Foundation in KRW 2,300,000,000, and agreed that the Foundation of this case will take over the compensation amount of KRW 892,528,00, provisional attachment, provisional disposition, various taxes, public charges, and defective amount, which are to compensate ○○ Office of Education in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permission for disposal of this case. On the same day, the Foundation of this case paid KRW 230,000,000 for the down payment to the Foundation of this case, and completed the registration of the provisional disposition of this case as to the real estate subject to disposal on July 19, 197 upon receipt of the order for provisional disposition as Seoul District Court Branch Branch 97Kahap00,0000 on July 15, 1997.

4) Since then, when the Plaintiff failed to perform its obligation to pay the intermediate payment and the balance under the above sales contract, on June 25, 1998, the Plaintiff agreed to transfer the status of purchaser under the above sales contract, including the right to the down payment that the Plaintiff had already paid, to the former LL, and on July 3, 1998, upon the entrustment of the cancellation registration of the provisional disposition registration of this case on July 10, 1998, the cancellation registration of the provisional disposition of this case was completed (the above cancellation registration was completed by the cancellation registration of provisional disposition on March 23, 201).

5) The instant foundation agreed to perform the registration of ownership transfer in the old LL name with respect to the real estate subject to disposal prior to the payment of the purchase price. Accordingly, on July 31, 1998, the ownership transfer registration in the old LL name was completed with respect to the real estate subject to disposal including each of the instant real estate.

6) Meanwhile, the head of the ○○ Office of Education notified the Plaintiff that “the status of the purchaser of the real estate subject to disposal from the Plaintiff to the old LL is a civil legal assignment of the parties to the sale and purchase, and thus it does not constitute a matter to be involved.” On the premise that the instant foundation requires a new contract with a third party, other than the Plaintiff, or where the instant foundation intends to enter into a new sales contract with a third party, it must obtain the permission for disposal again.”

7) The effective period of the instant disposition permission (6 months from May 2, 1997) was set on November 2, 1997, and the instant foundation and the old LL did not obtain any disposition permission from the competent authority regarding the sales contract the purchaser of the old L.

8) On August 6, 1998, the old LAL concluded a claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration of the real estate subject to disposal, including each of the instant real estate, with the Suwon District Court 2001 Gohap 200000 (including those who completed the ownership transfer registration in a successive order based on the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant KimD), and the above court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on August 19, 200 on the ground that the former L has no entitlement to seek cancellation registration on the ground that the former L has no entitlement to seek cancellation registration on the part of Defendant KimD, etc. (However, for the Defendant of the instant case, the former LAL’s claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration was rejected on the ground that the former LAL did not acquire the ownership transfer registration of the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration (Seoul High Court 2003Na000), but the latter did not have a right to claim cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of the Plaintiff on the ground that it was invalid on August 2005, 2004.

9) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the instant foundation as Seoul District Court Western Branch 2000Kahap0000 on the ground of a sales contract as of July 10, 1997, demanding the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on real estate subject to disposal. On June 7, 2002, the Plaintiff was rendered a judgment in favor of the part of simultaneous performance by the confession.

10) On February 12, 2004, the head of the ○○ Education Office ordered the Foundation to restore the ownership of the entire real estate subject to disposal in the name of the Foundation of this case and to cancel the registration of all rights other than ownership, such as provisional disposition and provisional seizure.

11) On October 27, 2006, the Foundation applied for the change of the assessment value of real estate subject to disposal from 2,296,947,200 to 3,537,298,68, among the terms of disposition of the instant permission to the superintendent of education at ○○ City, for the change of the term of validity to 3,537,298,68, and for the change of the term of validity to 6 months from the date of permission. On December 21, 2006, the superintendent of education at ○○ City rejected the application for the change of the term of validity of the instant permission after the lapse of 6 months from the date of failing to comply with the terms and conditions of permission already stipulated at the time of permission. The Foundation rejected the application for change of the term of validity of the instant permission on the ground that the real estate subject to disposal is not subject to disposal as the name of

12) The foundation of this case filed an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the above return disposition as Seoul Administrative Court 2007Guhap0000. The above court rendered a rejection of the application for alteration on January 22, 2008, which sought the extension of the effective period, as the permission of this case has already expired, and the above application for alteration includes the purport of seeking a new disposal permission. Thus, the above application for alteration is deemed to include the purport of seeking a new disposal permission. Therefore, it can be deemed that the above permission of this case completed in the name of the plaintiff is based on the invalid sales contract. The provisional disposition registration of this case completed in the name of the plaintiff is deemed to be null and void since the permission of this case was invalidated, and there was a criminal act committed by the foundation of this case and the officer of the plaintiff who is either the same person and the plaintiff who has interests with the foundation of this case were working for the foundation of this case, and even if the plaintiff received a partial winning judgment against the foundation of this case based on the above sales contract, it cannot be concluded that the above application for alteration of real property and its existence should not be dismissed.

4. Determination as to the claims against Defendant AA, SB, and JeonCC

(a) Judgment made by deemed confession: Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act;

B. Sub-committee

Therefore, with respect to each of the instant real estate, Defendant AA and SB are obligated to express their intent to accept each of the procedures for the restoration registration of the instant provisional disposition registration, the cancellation registration of which was completed with respect to the instant real estate 1 (the Defendants are entitled to accept the Plaintiff’s claim as a result of confession, but the Plaintiff cannot file an application for the restoration registration of the instant provisional disposition, unless all interested third parties consent to the completion of the provisional disposition registration).

5. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claims against the defendant Lee AA, SeoB, and JeonCC are reasonable, they shall be accepted, and the remaining claims against the defendants shall be dismissed as there is no reasonable ground. It is so decided as per Disposition.