1. All of the claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. Basic facts

A. On December 17, 2011, the Plaintiff sought an explanation from Defendant C, E, and F on the investment value, etc. of the instant forest owned by the Defendant Company, and decided to purchase shares equivalent to 50 square meters of the said forest as KRW 1,200,000 per square day, total price of KRW 60,000,000.

The Plaintiff deposited KRW 2,00,000 as the head of the Defendant Company’s passbook on December 19, 201, and paid KRW 56,700,000 in an intermediate payment, including the sum of KRW 32,00,000 on December 26, 201, and KRW 8,500,000 on December 30, 201, and KRW 16,40,00 on January 16, 2012, and KRW 26,7,00,000 on January 26, 2012, and KRW 2,50,000 on February 16, 2012, and KRW 56,70,000 on March 15, 2012.

B. On April 18, 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,126,00 to the Defendant Company as the cost for the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for shares equivalent to the above 50 square meters.

C. On May 15, 2012 and July 2, 2012, the Plaintiff agreed to additionally purchase shares of 25 square meters among the instant forest land from the Defendant Company, and deposited KRW 11,500,000,000, in the name of the down payment, intermediate payment, etc. on May 15, 2012, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 3,000,000,000 on June 19, 2012, in the name of the down payment, intermediate payment, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 3 evidence, Eul 5-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit and the cause of counterclaim

A. Defendant C, E, and F alleged by the parties to the claim that “The area where the instant forest was located is immediately developed as a commercial zone and the land value is harsh. It means that the instant forest was revoked, which means that the said forest is highly likely to be developed.” The fact that the said forest did not have any plan to be developed as a commercial zone, and that there was no cancellation of designation as a development restriction zone.

The Defendants, at least 30 times the market price of the forest land of this case, shall be rounded off to the Plaintiff.