1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 6, 2007, the Plaintiff and Dong E, F, G, and H entered into a sales contract with 18,826m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) on the joint purchase of KRW 1,139,00,000 of the purchase price with Jinjin-gun, Incheon, Incheon (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On May 2, 2007, I completed each registration of the transfer of ownership with the Plaintiff, E, K, F, G and H as indicated in the following table as a result of the implementation of the instant joint sales contract.

Plaintiff 7429.52/1826/1826 7,429.52 square meters (2,247.4 square meters K 〃 2,247.4 square meters) compared to the total area of his/her share in co-ownership, the size of which is 7429.52/1826 square meters (30.0 square meters) and the size of 91.74 square meters for 91.74 square meters for 300 square meters and

C. On May 2, 2007, E obtained a loan of 150,000,000 won from L unions (hereinafter “L unions”) as security from L unions, and appropriated the share for the purchase price.

Plaintiff

On the same day, the instant land was also loaned KRW 210,00,000 from L Cooperatives as security and appropriated for the purchase price of the share.

On the same day, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage was completed once the maximum debt amount of the instant land was 273,000,000 won, and one time as the debtor, the plaintiff, and the right to collateral security, as the limited partnership.

On the same day, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage was completed on the whole land of this case 195,00,000 won with the maximum debt amount of 195,00,000 won, and on the two occasions with the debtor E-mortgage and the

E Dec. 4, 2014, died on September 4, 2014, and the heir is the defendant C and D, who is the spouse.

E. On February 15, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred 91.4/18826 of the instant real estate co-ownership shares to M.

F. Defendant B confirmed the inherited property of E, and discovered that E purchased shares in comparison with other co-owners on the instant joint sales contract, and demanded the Plaintiff to additionally transfer part of the Plaintiff’s co-ownership share while resisting to the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on June 20, 2016, the Defendants correspond to the “400 square meters out of the Plaintiff’s co-ownership.”