1. Of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, with respect to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant), the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B, and C, with respect to their respective shares of 1/4.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased E completed the registration of ownership transfer made on April 17, 1985 due to sale on April 17, 1985 by the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 5379, April 17, 1985, received on April 17, 1985).

B. The deceased E died on December 16, 200, and the Plaintiff, the inheritor, around May 28, 2014, completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on inheritance by consultation and division as to each of the instant real estate on December 16, 200.

C. Meanwhile, around August 7, 191, the Defendants purchased each of the instant real estate from Dong E with the price of KRW 5,80,000. On September 13, 1991, the Defendants completed the provisional registration of ownership transfer claim on the ground of the pre-sale agreement (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) on September 13, 1991 as to the shares of KRW 1/4, and Defendant D with the receipt of KRW 7437 on September 13, 1991 as to shares of KRW 2/4, as to each of the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. As to the assertion of invalidity of cause, the Plaintiff asserts that “The provisional registration of this case must be cancelled as a provisional registration of invalidity of cause, since the network E did not have sold each of the instant real estate to the Defendants.”

However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the provisional registration of this case was a registration invalidation of cause, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(E) In light of the above, the Defendants purchased each of the instant real estate from Dong E around August 7, 1991 and completed the provisional registration of this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the claim of extinctive prescription, the Plaintiff stated that “the provisional registration of this case should be cancelled, as the Defendant’s right to claim ownership transfer registration of each of the instant real estate has expired by prescription.”