1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. Of the lawsuits filed by an independent party, against the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts (1) E, Defendant, and G were newly built an aggregate building (including 101, 102, 201, 202, 202, 301, 302, 302, 401, and 402-8 households) on the ground of 69.4 square meters on which G acquired ownership on February 7, 2003, as land owned by the Defendant Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D large 86 square meters, C large 52.9 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

The registration of ownership preservation was completed on April 24, 2003, E, the defendant, and G, with respect to each of the 1/3 shares of each of the households of this case.

(2) The Intervenor newly built the instant loan, and instead transferred the ownership of five households (No. 101, 102, 201, 301, 401, and 401) of the instant loan from E, Defendant, and G (No. 101, 102, 201, 301, and 401).

(3) On November 23, 2006, the Plaintiff acquired from the Intervenor No. 202 of the instant loan (the transfer process of the instant loan No. 202, not No. 201, the Intervenor agreed to be transferred).

The defendant had resided in 402 of the loan of this case around that time.

(4) In the case of the Intervenor and E, the Defendant, and G, the Seoul Central District Court 2006da457524 (principal lawsuit), the 2007da304733 (Counterclaim), and the 2007Gadan30546 (Counterclaim), the conciliation was concluded or the decision in lieu of conciliation was finalized, which included the following:

(hereinafter collectively referred to as “pre-trial conciliation, etc.,” and, if it is necessary to divide it, “pre-trial conciliation, etc.,” and “decision in lieu of the pre-trial conciliation, etc.”). The pre-trial conciliation, etc. do not explicitly indicate the reasons why the Plaintiff transferred the loan No. 201, which the Plaintiff acquired from the Intervenor, to the Plaintiff, rather than the loan No. 202.

(A) Conciliation (established on November 13, 2007)

1. E is paid KRW 23,33,400 from the Intervenor (i.e., KRW 20,000,000 for land purchase amount of KRW 3,333,400 for damages due to defects in the loan of this case).