1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall:

A. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B, E, F, G, and H are 13,543 square meters, each of which is 13,543 square meters in Mapo-gu Seoul.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 25, 2002, the Plaintiff was a regional housing association that obtained authorization for establishment to build a collective housing in the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul District District Office, and the Plaintiff constructed 299 households of P apartment on the ground of the above land (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the approval of the project plan as a contractor and a joint project proprietor.

B. The Plaintiff’s president Q Q from September 27, 2002 to March 7, 2008. The president of the partnership from June 13, 2008 to September 26, 2009 is R, and S is the representative director of T’s business who vicariously performed the Plaintiff’s business from September 27, 2002 to September 26, 2009.

C. The Plaintiff concluded a contract with U and the Defendant B, C, D, E, F, I, G, and J (hereinafter “U, etc.”) to sell each of the pertinent real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate sales contracts”). The number of real estate units and units of real estate held at a general meeting of members and concluded a contract with the Plaintiff to sell each of the instant real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant sales contracts”). The number of real estate units and units of real estate was specified around October 18, 2008 by holding a general meeting of members.

The Plaintiff asserts that each of the instant sales contracts constitutes a real estate sales contract rather than a real estate sales contract, but if the objective meaning of the language in the disposal document is clear, barring any special circumstance, the existence and content of the expression of intent should be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da31308, Sept. 10, 2015). Each of the instant sales contracts clearly means that “the sales of each of the instant real estate” is “the sales of each of the instant real estate” under its language, and it is insufficient to recognize otherwise even with all of the Plaintiff’s proof. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected.

Since then, around 2009, the Plaintiff prepared and delivered a written contract for each of the instant sales contracts to U.S., and there is only U et al. and the Plaintiff’s seal, and there is no joint seller’s seal, and the sales price is a national bank under the name of Gyeong-nam.