1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

. has been adjusted;

1. The Plaintiff: (a) obtained the succeeded execution clause according to the decision of the case that Defendant B was sentenced to the Defendant A (Yanju District Court 2012Kadan12911 and removal of buildings and delivery of land); or (b) removed and executed the building indicated in the attached Form of this case upon obtaining the execution clause granted by the decision of this case.

2. When the Plaintiff executes the execution in the manner described in paragraph (1) above, Defendant B shall take out all the goods, such as the goods owned by Defendant A and Nonparty H and the goods owned by Nonparty H, which are located in the real estate in the attached Form (a teahouse, original house). If the Defendant was unable to carry out the goods on the date of execution and the removal of the building was not executed, the amount of KRW 30 million shall be paid to the Plaintiff

3. Defendant B is fully responsible for the release of the goods as referred to in paragraph 2 above, and bears the cost of keeping the said goods, and if an objection is raised by the Plaintiff and Defendant A, the said amount shall be resolved at the expense of Defendant B.

(**Reference: The plaintiff shall withdraw a lawsuit against a joint defendant A when he/she is granted the succeeding execution clause described in paragraph (1).

G. G received a succession execution clause and carried out the removal and execution of the instant building (I). The Defendant received an order to liquidate corporeal movables as stated in the attached list within the instant building pursuant to the above conciliation clause, and kept them in the warehouse, and disposed of corporeal movables as storage fees at KRW 8,776,300.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, 7 evidence, Eul evidence 2 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant decided to invalidate the instant agreement against the Plaintiff while having formulated the instant agreement against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff would have succeeded to the said judgment for compulsory execution, etc., and the execution of removal of real estate and the Plaintiff.