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

A. On January 9, 2013, the Plaintiff (former representative C) concluded a sales contract to sell each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant for KRW 750,000,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. On January 9, 2013, according to the instant sales contract, the registration of ownership transfer, such as the purport of the claim, was completed in the future of the Defendant.

[Based on the recognition] The items in Gap evidence 4-1, 2, and Gap evidence 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. 1) The allegation that the sales contract of this case is null and void because it does not follow the procedure for disposing of collective ownership property, as the Plaintiff’s property, which is the church, is jointly owned by the members of the church, the disposal of the property must follow the resolution of the general meeting (joint meeting and the general meeting of the members) comprised of the members of the Plaintiff. 2) However, since the Plaintiff’s former representative C disposes of the real property of this case to the Defendant without the resolution of the

3) Even if the resolution of a joint council on December 9, 2012 was adopted by a resolution of the general meeting, the instant sales contract is null and void, as the resolution of the joint council held on December 9, 2012 did not satisfy the quorum (a majority opinion to attend the meeting). Accordingly, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant with respect to the instant real estate ought to be revoked.

B. Although the instant sales contract, which was concluded by the Defendant who actively participated in C’s act of breach of trust, was decided to open the instant real estate to the public at the Joint Council of December 9, 2012, pursuant to Article 103 of the Civil Act, C disposed of the instant real estate in the form of a negotiated contract to the Defendant. As such, the disposal of the instant real estate constitutes C’s act of breach of trust, and the Defendant actively participated in C’s act of breach of trust, the said sales contract is null and void in accordance with Article 103 of the Civil Act.