Defendant F shall be as listed in the separate sheet No. 1 to the Plaintiff.

A. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the part of the judgment of the court of first instance stating “the exchange contract or sales contract of August 28, 2008” shall be deemed to be “the exchange contract or sales contract of August 29, 2008”; (b) the part of “P 5519 square meters” in Article 16 of the 7th part shall be deemed to be “ Q 519 square meters”; and (c) the part of “P 5519 square meters” in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be deemed to be “the reason for the above Defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following determination as to the assertion emphasized or added by the plaintiff to

B. Additional determination 1) The plaintiff's assertion is also examined as to the allegations in the reference document submitted by the plaintiff after the closing of argument in the trial. A) On August 29, 2008, the joint seal between the plaintiff, defendant E, and F is affixed to both end of the real estate sales contract (Evidence A No. 1) as of August 29, 2008. This means that two documents, other than the sales contract, exist, and the above two documents indicate the shares to be exchanged between the plaintiff and the above defendants. Thus, the contract as of August 29, 2008 should be viewed as effective.

B) The Plaintiff transferred 46/300 of the Plaintiff’s shares in I, J, K, and L real estate to Defendant E, but did not receive any consideration from Defendant E. Therefore, since the Plaintiff transferred the above shares that he transferred to Defendant E without any cause, it must be returned from Defendant E.) according to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1, it is recognized that there exist three simple persons presumed to exist as the seals of the parties to the contract on both sides of the sales contract one. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the two additional documents exist solely on the above facts (the Plaintiff is the party to the contract, and only claims that the two additional documents exist as a party to the contract.