2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

A. On August 4, 2014, the Plaintiff’s husband D leased the Hho Lake (hereinafter “H”) from the Defendants related to the husband and wife of Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu and F ground Gdong (a collective building whose title title was registered for a sectioned building, but the registration of ownership preservation was not made; hereinafter “instant building”, and the relevant site was referred to as “instant site”) to the Plaintiff and resided in H H.

B. On November 2014, the Plaintiff heard from the Defendants the horses of J, and purchased shares in I and the instant site from J on November 6, 2014.

C. Around that time, the Defendants drafted a written agreement with D, the Plaintiff’s husband, to the following purport:

(A) No. 2-3, hereinafter “instant agreement”). The Defendants requested D to purchase the shares of J on the instant site and the instant building, and D purchased them.

The Defendants shall actively cooperate in necessary measures so that they can move into the category I purchased by D.

According to the sales contract between L, J and Defendant C, even though H is written to be purchased by Defendant C, and J, the J has not been occupied until now.

D If it is found, after purchase, that the Defendants do not have access to the subparagraph I or that the subparagraph I is not owned by the subparagraph D, the Defendants shall deliver H heading D.

C. Afterwards, some of the co-owners of the instant building filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the claim for extradition against the Plaintiff, and the judgment of the first instance court became final and conclusive on the grounds that it cannot be deemed that there was an agreement among all co-owners on division of the instant building, which is a combination property, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have reached an agreement on the division of the whole co-owners of the instant building. Although the Plaintiff appealed against the said

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2015Da18672, 4928 decided March 31, 2016 (the first instance court and the same court).