1. On April 21, 2017, the Defendant: (a) to the Plaintiffs regarding shares of 1/17 of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet of real estate.

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased H (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on September 18, 2016. The deceased’s heir is the Plaintiffs, J, and K, who are children born between the wife I and the deceased.

B. On October 21, 2013, the Deceased completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 5, 2013 with respect to each real estate indicated in the separate sheet “Real Estate List,” which is owned by the Deceased (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

At the time, J was appointed as the Defendant’s administrator on October 10, 2013 and was in office.

C. There is no active or negative property found at the time of the deceased’s death.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 8 (including each number in the case of additional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On December 18, 2016, the Defendant asserts that the instant real estate was owned by the J and the Plaintiff A, B, and D, and that, upon receiving the compensation for expropriation of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff A, B, and D shall pay KRW 100 million each, respectively, to the Plaintiff A, B, and D, and that after the agreement, the said Plaintiffs agreed that they would not raise any civil or criminal objection against J, and that the instant lawsuit is unlawful on the grounds that it was filed in violation of the aforementioned non-prosecution agreement, and that there is no interest in the protection of rights.

In full view of the purport of the entire argument in the statement in Eul evidence No. 4, J, plaintiff A, and D, on December 18, 2016, concluded that "the real estate of this case is owned by the representative of the defendant, and is included in the business site for the housing redevelopment improvement project in the LAB promotion zone, so the next J shall pay KRW 100 million to the plaintiff A and D upon receipt of the compensation for expropriation from the housing redevelopment improvement project association, and the plaintiff A and D shall not raise any civil or criminal objection against J after the above agreement, but the above agreement is valid after the JJ received the balance of the compensation for expropriation from the union."