1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B shall be dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C and Defendant D is dismissed, respectively.

3.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Defendant B and Defendant C are married with their husband and wife, and Defendant D is his father and wife.

On November 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B and Defendant C to purchase for KRW 500 million the E Apartment No. 101, 1901, and KRW 1901,00,000 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) at the time of the Gyeonggi-gu Gyeonggi-do Gyeonggi-do’s Gyeonggi-do, and to succeed to the bank loan KRW 100,000 and KRW 1901,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. The Plaintiff deposited KRW 200,000,000 on November 16, 2006 with the purchase price of the instant apartment, and KRW 50,000,00 on March 30, 207 to each of the Defendant B’s accounts. On April 17, 2009, the Plaintiff increased the purchase price at Defendant C’s request and deposited KRW 10,000,000 additionally, and the Defendants did not grant the Plaintiff the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant apartment.

C. Since the instant apartment was held by a voluntary auction and the ownership was transferred to a third party on June 28, 2013, the Defendants, a joint seller, became unable to perform their obligations under the sales contract.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff cancelled the instant contract and claimed the refund of the purchase price and the delay damages paid by the Plaintiff as a result of restitution.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the entries and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the judgment on the claim against Defendant B, Defendant B was declared bankrupt on June 28, 2013 by Suwon District Court No. 2012Hadan6168, Nov. 1, 2013, and the above decision of immunity became final and conclusive at the time when the decision of immunity was granted by Suwon District Court No. 20168, Nov. 1, 2013.

Plaintiff

Even according to the assertion of the claim, since the claim of the defendant B was based on the cause prior to the application for bankruptcy, and thus, the liability was exempted pursuant to Articles 423 and 566 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act. Thus, the claim of the defendant B against the defendant is ordinarily secured.