1.On the claim that this Court alters in exchange:

A. The plaintiff's claim against the primary defendant.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: (a) the Defendant A’s “Defendant A” at the bottom of the 5th judgment of the first instance court as “Plaintiff”; and (b) the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment, except for the addition as follows; and (c) this part is cited by the main text of Article 420

[Additional Part] The third part of the judgment of the court of first instance added “the status of the party.” to “the primary defendant” and “the primary defendant” to “the defendant,” both, “the defendant,” and “the primary defendant,” respectively.

The following shall be added under the 8th written judgment of the first instance:

A person shall be appointed.

G. On September 23, 2016 and on November 3, 2011, the Defendant Union decided to sell the entire land of this case at KRW 1.40 billion at the representatives’ meeting on September 23, 2016 and on September 23, 2016. 2) The Defendant Union changed the name of the owner of the instant land to Nonparty U, according to the resolution of the said representatives’ meeting.

【The 8th of the first instance judgment (including the number of evidence No. 15, 16, hereinafter the same)

each entry in the subsection shall be added.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. 1) The Defendant Union delegated the right to dispose of the instant land to Defendant D, and Defendant D transferred the ownership of the instant land to the Plaintiff on September 6, 2013. Thus, Defendant D is obligated to transfer the ownership of the instant land to the Plaintiff. 2) Even if Defendant D is not recognized as the right to dispose of the instant land, the Defendant Union indicated that ① externally Defendant D conferred the right to dispose of the instant land to Defendant D, and ② Defendant C, a managing director of the Defendant Union, agreed on March 9, 201 to transfer the ownership of the instant land to the Plaintiff, using the name “Defendant Association Executive Director” when Defendant C, a managing director of the Defendant Union, agreed on March 9, 201. The Plaintiff was Defendant D and C.