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

A. The Plaintiff and Defendant C are children of the deceased D (hereinafter “the deceased”) and Defendant B.

B. On December 20, 199, the deceased and the heirs, including the Plaintiff and the Defendants, agreed on the division of inherited property with the instant land as the sole ownership of Defendant B, and on December 9, 2005, the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land was completed in the future on December 9, 2005.

C. Around December 2005, Defendant B, at the time of the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land, planned the purchase price of the instant land as KRW 100 million and deducted a brokerage fee of KRW 10 million, Defendant B paid KRW 13 million to the Plaintiff, taking into account the Plaintiff’s share of inheritance.

Defendant B sold the instant land in KRW 219 million to F on September 21, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendants, the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion, in collusion with the Plaintiff at the time of completing the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land, deceiving the Plaintiff that the market price of the instant land was KRW 80 million and paid KRW 13 million corresponding to the Plaintiff’s share of inheritance.

However, Defendant B sold the instant land in KRW 219 million after the fact that the Defendants sold the instant land in KRW 20,692,307 out of the inherited property to be duly obtained by the Plaintiff due to the Defendants’ deception (i.e., KRW 219,00,000 of the purchase price of the instant land x 1/6.5 of the Plaintiff’s inheritance x 13,000,000 of the Plaintiff’s inheritance x 13,000 of the Plaintiff’s inheritance - the Defendants suffered unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount. Accordingly, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay

3. The Plaintiff filed the instant claim under the premise that the Defendants deceptioned the Plaintiff with respect to the market price of the instant land. Therefore, the Defendants, as alleged by the Plaintiff, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine.