1. According to the Plaintiff’s expansion of the purport of the claim in the trial, the part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance is as follows.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was in office as a faculty member of the Fridge E (hereinafter “instant church”) located in the Pakistan-si.

B. The land of this case, which is the site of the instant church, shall be registered for the transfer of ownership in the name of the YAD Korea Foundation (which is a foundation that manages the property of the Korea Tridong Association; hereinafter referred to as the “Maintenance Foundation”). In order to dispose of the said land, it shall obtain the approval of the Korea Tridong Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Tridong Association”) with the approval of the Korea Tridong Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Tridong”) established by the Korea Tridong Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Tridong”).

C. The Plaintiff decided to sell the instant church before the retirement age around 2010, and concluded a sales contract with Defendant B, which was introduced by Co-Defendant D of the first instance trial (hereinafter “D”), on the instant land and church verbally. Defendant B paid KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff as the down payment.

However, the defendant B could not take over the church of this case against his family, and D asked the defendant C who has the brokerage assistant career to find out the person to purchase the above church.

E. On July 2010, G was planned to remove the instant church through the introduction of the Defendants and build medical care center, etc. on the instant land, and around July 2010, the discussion on the sale and purchase of the said land was conducted. During that process, Defendant B, in order to obtain approval from the labor association and the general meeting, made documents, such as the official seal certificate of the instant church, the minutes of the meeting held on August 22, 2010, and sought them from the labor association and the maintenance foundation.

However, as G continues to questioning about the procedure that it should undergo for the purchase of the above land, the plaintiff refused to sell the land, which eventually failed to enter into a sales contract with G.

F. The Defendants are entitled to the instant land.