1. The Defendant’s KRW 250,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from February 25, 2015 to September 25, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

Article 31 (1) of the Attorney-at-law Act (amended by Act No. 31 (1) of the same Act) prohibits a lawyer from performing his/her duties in cases where the other party to the case has accepted an appeal from one of the parties to the case and consented to the fact that the litigation of the plaintiff's attorney is not effective. The reason why a lawyer performs his/her duties in such cases is first prohibiting a lawyer from performing his/her duties in a case where he/she has trusted his/her attorney and has entrusted the case to the other party, and thus, he/she cannot perform his/her duties. Thus, in such a case, Article 31 (1) of the Attorney-at-law Act (amended by Act No. 31 (1) of the same Act), the case in which the attorney was involved shall be the same as the other party to the case. Whether the case is identical or not shall be determined individually in accordance with the scope of conflicting interests, and whether the case is identical to the subject matter of a lawsuit or whether the procedure is identical with the civil case or not.

(2) Article 31(1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act provides that “A person who is not a party to the instant case shall be liable to compensate for the damages incurred by the plaintiff to the third party to the instant case” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da41791, Nov. 28, 2003).”

The Plaintiff’s assertion and the key issue of the instant case are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant acquire the ownership share of 14,684m2 (hereinafter “instant share”) of Ilyang-dong, Yongsan-gu, Seoyang-si (hereinafter “instant real estate”) 14,684m2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). 300 million won.