2. The plaintiff's defendant.

A. On December 12, 1966, Defendant C and D’s subsidiaries (hereinafter “the network”) completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land prior to the substitution of real estate as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) on December 1, 1966, due to sale and purchase on December 1, 1966. After the deceased’s death, Defendant C and D completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the instant land on January 29, 2014 with respect to one-half shares on April 10, 1980.

B. Since April 20, 2015, Defendant C and D completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 13, 2015 with respect to each of the instant shares out of the instant land to Defendant B on April 20, 2015.

C. Defendant Busan Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Busan Bank”) completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on the instant land with the debtor as Defendant B, the registration of creation of a mortgage on April 30, 2015 with the maximum debt amount of KRW 120 million, and the registration of creation of a mortgage on June 24, 2015 with the maximum debt amount of KRW 84 million, respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as the “registration of establishment of each of the instant units”) d. the registration of establishment of each of the following units 1 and 2:

On July 25, 1980, the Daegu High Court rendered a judgment to the effect that the registration of ownership transfer should be cancelled, since the part of the land purchased by the deceased from the defendant's fish shed as to the land prior to the substitution of the land in this case constitutes a disposal of the religious property (so-called fish death) without the permission of the competent authority, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

E. On June 5, 2015, Defendant B, C, and D agreed against the Plaintiff at the Busan District Court on the following grounds: “The Defendant Company agreed to allow the Plaintiff to waive and continue to own the original state in consideration of the fact that the deceased was taken over after the lawsuit described in the above paragraph (d) became final and conclusive, and thus, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the deceased and their names is valid in accordance with the substantive legal relationship.”