1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. The Defendants asserted that they each completed the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “each of the instant real estates”) as stated in the separate sheet from the Plaintiffs with respect to each share of each of the instant real estates listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estates”).

Each transfer registration of ownership in this case is null and void since the president of the partnership arbitrarily sells it to the defendant without the consent of the plaintiffs' members and without the resolution of the general meeting of the partnership.

In addition, the Defendants actively participated in the act of breach of trust by the heads of the Plaintiffs association and completed each of the instant registrations of ownership transfer, so the sale between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants constitutes anti-social legal act and invalid.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of each ownership transfer registration of this case to the Plaintiffs.

2. The legal principles and a protocol of compromise prior to the filing of a lawsuit are effective as a final and conclusive judgment and res judicata takes place between the parties. Thus, even if the content thereof is in violation of compulsory provisions, it cannot be argued that such compromise is null and void unless it is revoked by a quasi-adjudication procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da1903, Oct. 27, 1992). The assertion that the transfer registration of ownership based on the settlement prior to the filing of a lawsuit is null and void, and the claim for the implementation of the cancellation registration procedure is made by asserting that the transfer registration of ownership based on the settlement prior to the filing of a lawsuit is a cause null and void, and thus, it conflicts with the res judicata effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da44014, Dec. 6, 2002).