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

The plaintiff and the defendant are South Korea.

On February 11, 1999, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name with respect to the housing of 143 square meters and 2-storys above ground prior to Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and the housing under the name of the Defendant.

After that, on June 23, 2009, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed in the name of the defendant's Cho Jong and the plaintiff's children as the plaintiff's children.

The Defendant asserted that D had claimed the termination of a title trust agreement or the cancellation of a sales agreement, etc., and filed a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of D with respect to each of the instant real estate in the Daegu District Court Decision 2013Da24294, Jun. 11, 2014. However, the said court dismissed all the Defendant’s claim on June 11, 2014, and the Defendant’s appeal (Seoul District Court 2015Na6474) and the final appeal (Supreme Court 2015Da6490) were all dismissed, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 1, 201

Since then, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against D in Daegu District Court Decision 2015Gahap2011, which sought payment of the purchase price, etc. of each of the instant real estate, and partly won the judgment. D’s appeal and the said lawsuit is pending in the appellate court ( Daegu High Court 2017Na19).

D) Each building name lawsuit was filed against the Defendant (Seoul District Court Branch 2015Gadan23509), E (the above court 2015Gadan23493), F (the above court 2015Gadan23516), G (the above court 2015Gadan23516), etc., and the settlement was concluded between G was made between G, and the remaining persons including the Defendant was sentenced to a favorable judgment.

Each of the above building names also participated in the lawsuit as D's legal representative.

On the other hand, in the Daegu District Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision 550 Fraud, the Defendant, despite being not the owner of the building of this case, was done as if he were the owner, and entered into a lease agreement on the building of this case with F around 2013 and F.