1. All of the lawsuits filed by the Plaintiff (Plaintiffs) for retrial of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be paid.

1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial is apparent or obvious in records in this court.

Plaintiff

D, I, K, and P filed a lawsuit against the Defendant as Seoul Central District Court 2006Gahap102524, asserting that the stores of 362, 701, 464, and 154 from among the 6th underground and the 18th floor T buildings on the 18th floor above the Seoul Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Central District Court (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) were sold in lots on three lots, but the sales contract was cancelled or cancelled, and that the sale contract was first paid due to the cancellation of the contract or the cancellation of the contract, and that the sale price, penalty, development cost, and delay damages, which were paid due to the restoration to the original state due to the cancellation of the contract or the cancellation of the contract due to the default, and the sale price, development cost, and delay damages.

On November 15, 2007, the court of first instance rendered a ruling to dismiss all the plaintiffs' claims.

B. The Plaintiffs appealed and appealed in Seoul High Court No. 2007Na126586. The Plaintiffs extended the purport of the claim to seek the payment of the sale price, penalty, development cost, and damages for delay, which were incurred due to the cancellation of the agreement, the statutory cancellation due to nonperformance of obligation, or the cancellation of deception, and the payment of the sale price, the penalty, the development cost, and the damages for delay from the date following the scheduled occupancy date.

On May 12, 2009, the above appellate court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that “the plaintiff’s appeal, the primary claim expanded in the trial, and each conjunctive claim added in the trial are dismissed,” and the plaintiffs were served with the original copy of the judgment subject to a retrial on May 20, 2009.

E. The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with this and appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2009Da47593, but they were dismissed by a judgment of non-trial on August 20, 2009, and the said judgment was against the Plaintiffs on August 31, 2009.