1. As to each of the plaintiffs' share of one half

A. Defendant C: (b) on real estate in [Attachment] Nos. 1 and 2 of the Schedule.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs own 1/2 of each share of F, 965 square meters in Namyang-si, Namyang-si (the division of G land around November 201) and H 2,288 square meters in return for the division of land around November 2010 (the division of land between I and J around November 201, and K’s annexation of land) prior to the division.

B. On July 12, 2010, the Plaintiffs deemed that the Plaintiff’s attorney appointed on March 4, 2019 as the Plaintiff’s attorney who had been pending in the lawsuit for withdrawal of lawsuit was voluntarily withdrawn the lawsuit by mistake by admitting “M” as “O”. However, a lawsuit is effective by nature of litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da6124, Jun. 27, 1997; 95Da11740, Oct. 24, 1997; 95Da11740, Oct. 24, 1997) and N (the withdrawal of the lawsuit on May 4, 2018) without a deposit of 92 square meters in two parcels before subdivision, and the period is set from July 12, 2010 to October 1, 2015 to be leased and attached to all the buildings.

C. On November 19, 2010, the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2010, the real estate listed in the Nos. 3 and 4 was completed in Defendant C’s future on November 19, 2010, and each registration of ownership preservation was completed in Defendant D on November 19, 2010. The real estate listed in paragraph 5 was completed in Nonparty N’s future on November 19, 2010, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in Defendant E’s future on November 12, 2013.

[Evidence A] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Both asserted parties seek implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer concerning each real estate owned by the Defendants on the grounds of a transfer agreement dated July 12, 2010.

The Defendants asserted that they exercise their right to purchase the instant real estate.

Under the premise that each real estate of this case is an accessory to a lessee, the assertion that the transfer agreement asserted by the Plaintiffs pursuant to Articles 652 and 646 of the Civil Act is null and void (see, e.g., the written reply dated August 13, 2018) is not separately determined.

B. The provision of Article 643 of the Civil Act regarding the lessee’s right to demand purchase is a mandatory provision.