1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The principal lawsuit of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall be dismissed.

(b).

1. Basic facts

A. The reasoning for this part of this Court is as follows, and this part of this Court’s reasoning is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except for dismissal as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

B. On December 13, 2012, the part in the judgment of the court of first instance, 3: “Defendant C has obtained a building permit with the content that “The instant house is newly built on the land of 660 square meters of light steel structure on the land of 660 square meters of light steel structure, E-do in lightyang-si in his own possession (hereinafter “instant house”)” in the part in the judgment of the court of first instance, “Defendant C has obtained a building permit with the content that “The instant house is newly built on the land of 660 square meters of light steel structure on the land of 660 square meters of light steel structure, E-si in lightyang-si in his own possession (hereinafter “instant house”).”

The phrase “the same 630 square meters” in Section 1 of the judgment of the first instance is deemed to read “I large 630 square meters.” The fourth part of the judgment of the first instance is deemed to read “Defendant C”. The fourth part of the judgment of the first instance is as follows. The fourth part of the judgment of the first instance is deemed to read “Defendant C”. The fourth part of the judgment of the first instance is as follows: (i) there is no dispute (based on recognition); (ii) No. 1, 2; (iii) Nos. 1, 2, 1 and 19 (including the number of serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); (iv) each description of the evidence No. 1, 2, and 19 (including the number of

2. As seen in Paragraph 4 below, the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit is inappropriate due to the seizure according to the disposition procedure for arrears by the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor. However, in order to determine the propriety of the Plaintiff’s claim, the existence and scope of the Plaintiff’s claim for construction price against the Defendants, the seized claim, is examined.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was jointly ordered by the Defendants. As such, the Defendants jointly and severally ordered construction work amounting to KRW 72,465,356 (i.e., the agreed construction cost plus KRW 10,465,356) to the Plaintiff (i.e., the agreed construction cost plus KRW 10,465,356), the unpaid construction cost of KRW 34,465,300, which remains after deducting KRW 38 million from the agreed construction cost.