1. The Defendants have jurisdiction over one half of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.

1. Presumed factual basis

A. The Defendants are the Plaintiff’s ar and e-type E’s children, who are the Plaintiff’s arsenal, and F are the Plaintiff’s sentence.

B. E purchased shares of 81/91 of the real estate listed in [Attachment List No. 1 and each land listed in [Attachment List No. 2 and 3] on that ground and newly built a building listed in [Attachment List No. 4] on that ground.

C. Voluntary auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) was commenced with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), and the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid for each of the instant real estate at the instant auction procedure around October 11, 2002 and completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt No. 13114, Oct. 11, 2002.

On June 12, 2015, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendants (hereinafter “instant registration of ownership transfer”) was completed on July 22, 2015 with respect to one-half share of each of the instant real estate under the name of the Defendants under the receipt No. 9934 on July 22, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff failed to conclude a sales contract (A) was awarded a successful bid in his name and acquired the ownership of each of the instant real estate.

Between E and E on behalf of the Defendants, the Plaintiff and the buyer determined as the Defendants and prepared a sales contract on each of the instant real estate, on the basis of the officially announced land price, and subsequently confirmed and entered the sale price in the future, and intended to have the sale price blank.

The sales amount is an important element of the sales contract, and even if there was no agreement on the sales amount, the sales amount was arbitrarily used the documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership that E had already held in the name of the Defendants.