1. The withdrawal of the instant case was terminated on September 22, 2016.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person after the request for designating the date.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 12, 2016, Han Heavy Law Firm submitted a letter of delegation of lawsuit to the effect that it was delegated by the Plaintiff to this court on October 12, 2015, and a letter of designation of the Attorney C, D, and E as an attorney in August 2016, and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, who is the Plaintiff’s husband, as the Plaintiff’s legal representative, on the ground that the Defendant cancelled the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer as stated in the purport of the above provisional registration without the Plaintiff’s consent.

(hereinafter “instant lawsuit”). (b)

On September 22, 2016, a law firm plaza submitted a letter of delegation of a lawsuit to the effect that he/she was delegated by the Plaintiff to this court on September 22, 2016, and a letter of designation of the attorney F and G in September 2016, the Plaintiff’s legal representative, who was the Plaintiff’s legal representative, withdrawn the instant lawsuit on the ground that the instant lawsuit was brought against the Plaintiff’s husband’s husband and wife in conflict with the Plaintiff’s intention.

(hereinafter “Withdrawal of the instant lawsuit”). C.

On September 30, 2016, Korea-China submitted a written opinion to the effect that the forum representing the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s position in the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and that it is unlawful for the Plaintiff to institute the suit in this case by asserting that it was not legally granted the power of attorney from the Plaintiff. On October 24, 2016, Korea-China submitted an application for designating the date of the instant suit, stating that the date of the instant suit will be designated.

On the other hand, on November 9, 2015, the Plaintiff’s I filed a petition for adjudication on the commencement of adult guardianship with the Plaintiff as the principal of the case (Seoul Family Court Decision 2015Ra31423). On September 29, 2016, the court commences adult guardianship for the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff has continuously failed to perform his/her duties due to mental constraints, and commences adult guardianship for the Plaintiff, as an adult guardian for the protection of the Plaintiff’s personal affairs.