1. The Defendants received on July 7, 2014 from the Plaintiff, the Daegu District Court, Ulsan District Court, Ulsan District Court, and the Ulsan District Court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 20, 2013, the Plaintiff and E purchased a building of 231 square meters and its ground from F and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 14, 2013, with the trade name “HMoel” from May 6, 2013.

B. After that, on July 30, 2013, the Plaintiff and E agreed to remove the above ground buildings and to newly construct a new building, concluded a contract with F to purchase an additional 175 square meters of land size and JJ 16 square meters, and complete the registration of transfer of ownership on August 28, 2013, each 1/2 equity shares, and each 1/2 equity shares are borne on August 28, 2013, and they concluded a contract with G, I, and J to jointly construct a new building on the ground and jointly operate accommodation facilities, etc. at a new building to distribute the profits equally (hereinafter “instant business agreement”).

C. Accordingly, on July 2, 2014, the Plaintiff and E have removed the Gu building, obtained a building permit under the name of E, constructed a building indicated in the attached list on the G, I, and J ground (hereinafter “instant building”). On July 7, 2014, the Plaintiff and E completed the registration of preservation of E’s ownership (hereinafter “registration of preservation of ownership”) under the name of Ulsan District Court No. 832, Ulsan District Court’s receipt on July 7, 2014.

The Plaintiff asserted that “Plaintiff and E agreed to newly construct the instant building and jointly own the ownership relationship,” and that “E is obligated to perform the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 1/2 shares of the instant building,” and filed a lawsuit against “E” as the Daegu District Court Branch Branching 2014Gahap1282, the said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on February 5, 2015 on the ground that “Plaintiff and E constitute an association under the instant trade agreement, and the instant building is the partnership’s property as the property of the Plaintiff and E.

E. The plaintiff appealed against this, and the Daegu High Court in the appellate trial.