September 6, 2013 (or against the Defendants)

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

Cheong-gu Office

Main claims: The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 6% a year from December 2, 2005 to the delivery date of the complaint of this case, and 20% a year from the next day to the day of full payment (Partial Claim). Defendant 0D, EE, and Republic of Korea jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 6% a year from January 15, 2010 to the delivery date of the complaint of this case, and 20% a year from the next day to the day of full payment (Partial Claim) the amount of money calculated by each of 20% a year from the next day to the day of full payment (Partial Claim).

Preliminary Claim: Defendant Chapter BB, LB, EE, Gangwon, and Republic of Korea jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by 9% per annum from July 10, 2010 to the delivery date of the complaint in this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. Defendant 0D, EE, and Republic of Korea jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by 9% per annum from July 10, 2009 to the day of full payment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment of the complaint in this case. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to deliver to the Plaintiff the certificate of purchase and sale of farmland, the certificate of permission for land transaction contract, the receipt of passbook, the ledger, seal, the receipt of goods, the receipt of money for purchase and delivery, etc.

The court ordered the Plaintiff to deposit within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice of OOO as a security of litigation costs in relation to the instant lawsuit on May 2, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant order to provide security”). As to this order, the Plaintiff filed an immediate appeal with the court 201Ra86, but the court of appeal decided the above immediate appeal on March 18, 2013, and the above decision of dismissal became final and conclusive at that time.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff is obligated to provide the security in accordance with the instant order to provide the security. However, it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff did not provide it until the date of closing argument of the instant case, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Gangnam among the instant lawsuit pursuant to Article 124 of the Civil Procedure Act is dismissed.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the claim against the remaining Defendants among the lawsuit of this case

A. The part of the main claim and the conjunctive claim

Article 249(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the purport and cause of a claim shall be stated in a complaint. This is because the existence of a certain right or legal relationship asserted by the plaintiff by the statement of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim, i.e., whether the subject matter of the claim is specific. Therefore, even if the purport of the claim is specified, in the case of relative and non-exclusive rights, such as the damage claim, a number of parties can be established depending on the time of occurrence and the cause of the claim, and therefore, the time and cause

It is clear that the subject matter is specified.

This court ordered the Plaintiff to specify the purport and cause of the claim several times. In full view of the Plaintiff’s complaint, additional statement of claim, method of proof, document and evidence, application for change of claim, etc., application for addition of claim, adjustment of cause of claim, correction of claim, submission of document, etc., submission of documentary evidence, etc., in the case of the main claim against the said Defendants and the claim for damages among the ancillary claim, it cannot be seen that the cause of claim, such as the claim cost and the basis for calculation of the amount of the claim. Accordingly, each of the above claim for damages cannot be deemed to have been specified in the subject matter of lawsuit,

B. The remainder of the conjunctive claim

In this part, the purport of the claim is unclear, and even based on the written statement and evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including the written complaint, the cause of the claim cannot be known. The above part of the claim is unlawful because it does not specify the subject matter of the lawsuit

3. Conclusion

All of the lawsuits of this case are dismissed as unlawful.