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

A. After the Defendant purchased Pyeongtaek-si and completed the registration of ownership transfer, the above registration of ownership transfer was cancelled. At the time of the conclusion of the above sales contract, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, etc., including the Plaintiff, to seek a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the compensation for damages or the purchase price, under the court No. 2012Ga7405, supra, on September 23, 2015, against 39 residents, including the Plaintiff, etc., by the confession that “the Plaintiff jointly with E, and jointly paid the Defendant the amount of KRW 105,707,00, and delay damages therefor,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive as is on December 4, 2015.

B. With respect to the parties disputing the defendant's claim at the time, this Court deceivings the above parties to the defendant.

A decision was rendered to dismiss the defendant's claim on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of a duty of care or that the claim for return of unjust enrichment can not be filed against the members of the D Village Association, separate from seeking a return of the purchase price.

C. On March 24, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction on the real estate owned by the Plaintiff with F of this Court based on the authentic copy of the instant judgment, and received a decision to commence the auction from this Court.

[Grounds for recognition] The items in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and Gap evidence 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. If the plaintiff asserted at the time of the proceeding of the judgment of this case, the defendant's claim against the plaintiff et al. was dismissed, the judgment is in conflict with the substantive legal relationship, and the plaintiff was sold to the defendant by the above village association as the members of D village association.