1. After remand, the plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange is dismissed.

2. Between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff, Defendant D (hereinafter “D”) and F (hereinafter “Co-owners of this case”) invested capital in around May 2003 and agreed to purchase each real estate listed in the separate sheet in F’s name (hereinafter “the entire land of this case”) (hereinafter “the entire land of this case”) on December 22, 2003 through December 31, 2003, after purchasing each ownership on the entire land of this case under F’s name, according to the separate sheet, when they are individually named in the separate sheet. At that time, on December 31, 2003 through December 41, 2003, the Plaintiff agreed to complete the registration of ownership in F’s name. D and F around that time, each share of 45%, and the Plaintiff’s ownership share of 10%.

2) On September 1, 2003, the Association completed the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security with the maximum amount of 2.2 billion won against part of the entire land of this case, the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security with the debtor F, the maximum amount of 430 million won against the claim on July 6, 2004, and the debtor D. At the time of the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security, F was loaned from the O Association KRW 1.5 billion against the P, and D used KRW 1.5 billion against the loan received under the F as the purchase price of the entire land of this case.

3) On July 21, 2007, the Plaintiff, F, and K entered into a contract with M to sell approximately KRW 20.44 billion in large amount from July 21, 2007 to December 2007, M to M, approximately KRW 2.34 billion in total, and KRW 2.44 billion in total, from July 2007 to December 2007, when the name of the entire land of this case and the name of K is safe (hereinafter “instant land”). Accordingly, when all of the instant land including the entire land of this case is referred to as “one-six parcel of land”, M wired to F.

B. F, D, and the first adjustment 1) D, asserting that F is 45% of their shares and division agreements with respect to the entire land of this case, and filed a lawsuit against F to seek implementation of the procedures for registration of partial transfer of ownership, thereby winning the judgment on July 23, 2009.