1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant (Plaintiff).

purport, purport, ..

1. The reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the instant case is as follows, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the assertion that the defendant emphasizes or added to this case in this court, and thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant appealed only the Plaintiff with respect to the judgment subject to a retrial rendered by Seoul Central District Court 2012Gahap54666, and the Defendant did not appeal. Accordingly, the Defendant’s decision of retrial No. 1 among the judgment subject to a retrial was rendered.

Paragraph (1) (hereinafter “the Plaintiff shall be subject to review”) is confirmed as the Defendant’s 7/30 shares among the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2, and C shall carry out the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on a transfer agreement dated October 1, 1998 with respect to shares of 1/10 shares, and that the relevant part shall be subject to review.

B. We examine the case where only the Plaintiff filed an appeal regarding a part of the judgment subject to a retrial, but the appellate court, the Seoul High Court 2014Na2004536, May 14, 2014, where the case was pending, the Defendant’s order 1 of the judgment subject to a retrial.

The fact that the incidental appeal seeking the revocation of a claim is submitted to the above court is apparent in the record, and this decision is based on Article 1-A of the judgment subject to a retrial.

It is reasonable to deem that the portion of the Plaintiff’s claim falling under paragraph is also included in the subject of review by the appellate court.

(A) The conciliation protocol prepared between the plaintiff and the defendant during the above appellate trial contains the same conciliation clause as Paragraph (a) of Paragraph (1) of the Disposition No. 1 among the conciliation protocol, and it is evident that the conciliation clause has been finally concluded and the conciliation has been concluded). Accordingly, the defendant's assertion against this is not acceptable.

3. The suit of this case is unlawful and thus dismissed.

The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable in conclusion as above.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit.