1. The plaintiff A's lawsuit against the defendants is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff B's primary claim and ancillary claim against the defendants.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 23, 2016, Plaintiff A purchased the right to purchase the housing site of the migrants related to Pyeongtaek-si G land (hereinafter “instant right to purchase the housing site”) from the F District of Pyeongtaek-si located in Pyeongtaek-si, which is owned by Plaintiff A at KRW 240 million.

(2) The Plaintiff concluded the instant sales contract as a broker by Defendant B, and paid KRW 210 million out of the purchase price to the Defendants, and received the documents under the so-called “instant sales contract”, such as a sales contract in which the seller entered the sales contract into E and the remainder is recorded as E, and the sales contract in which the remainder is recorded as a public column.

B. As the Plaintiff and its wife did not implement the procedure for the change of ownership on the instant parcel-out right, Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B filed a lawsuit against Plaintiff E seeking the implementation of the procedure for the change of ownership of the parcel-out right under the Suwon District Court Decision 2017dan50032. On February 8, 2018, the lawsuit was concluded on the premise that “the sales contract of this case constitutes a sales contract for the parcel-out right which was concluded before the supply of the parcel-out right from the project implementer, and thus null and void” on February 8, 2018, the Plaintiffs newly paid KRW 150 million to E and completed the procedure for the change of ownership of the parcel-out right.

Plaintiff

A paid KRW 150 million to E according to the above conciliation.

C. On February 12, 2018, Plaintiff A demanded the Defendants to compensate for the damages incurred by the invalidation of the instant sales contract. On February 12, 2018, Plaintiff A written statement to Defendant D, stating that “The Defendants would not be held liable for any civil or criminal liability in relation to the instant sales contract instead of receiving KRW 20 million from Defendant D and KRW 10 million from Defendant C,” as shown in attached Forms 1 and 2, respectively.

On the same day, Defendant D paid KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff, and Defendant C paid KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] A.