1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and C jointly share 13,00,000 won, Defendant D jointly with Defendant B and C, and 5,000 of which amount is 5,00.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or are acknowledged based on Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 13, Gap evidence 14, Gap evidence 15, Gap evidence 20, Gap evidence 21, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 16-1, 3, 5, 6, and the whole purport of the arguments, and there is no counter-proof.

On November 11, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on October 29, 2014, in Chuncheon District Court G Auction Case (hereinafter “instant voluntary auction”) with respect to the land of 339 square meters and 9053 square meters (hereinafter “land subject to auction”), which was owned by Defendant B (hereinafter “instant voluntary auction”).

B. The objects of auction in the voluntary auction of this case include the agricultural boiler facilities, agricultural boiler facilities, quantitative facilities, physical size facilities, container control facilities, and supply facilities located on the left side of the entrance of the building, which are located in the residential boiler facilities in the instant auction, the residential boiler facilities located in the machinery room at the entrance of the building, and the agricultural boiler facilities, the agricultural boiler facilities, the water storage facilities, the container facilities, and the container control facilities inside the machinery room, and the equipment of supply facilities.

C. On December 20, 2014, Defendant B sold at KRW 8,000,00, a quantity supply machine, boilerer, electric power distribution plate, etc. installed in a glass temperature room on the land subject to the auction of this case to Defendant C. On January 1, 2015, Defendant B sold to Defendant D a pipe at KRW 5,000,000, which was installed in a glass temperature room on the land subject to the auction of this case.

2. Determination as to the existence of the Defendants’ obligation to compensate for damages

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is erroneous in failing to comply with the Defendants’ invitation or duty of care.