1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

In fact, the first instance judgment: Defendant B filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff claiming ownership transfer registration under Seoul Central District Court 2006Gahap105653, stating that “The Plaintiff (the Plaintiff Company E prior to the change: the representative director) prepared a sales contract in lieu of the F’s repayment of loan borrowed money, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against G et al. and nine other parties, a co-owner of the instant real estate, claiming ownership transfer registration under the Seoul Central District Court 2006Gahap105653, in lieu of the payment of construction expenses, on December 17, 2003, claiming that “The Plaintiff, et al., a co-owner of the instant real estate, entered into an accord and satisfaction agreement to transfer the ownership of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff on December 17, 2003, by subrogation of the Plaintiff.”

After the above court consolidated each lawsuit, on November 30, 2007, the court sentenced that "(i) the Plaintiff shall carry out the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the sale of the real estate in this case to Defendant B on November 18, 2004, and (ii) the Plaintiff shall carry out the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for each of the real estate in this case to the Plaintiff on December 17, 2003 with respect to each of the 1/10 shares among the real estate in this case."

The appellate court’s non-party G and nine others appealed to the above judgment as Seoul High Court 2008Na3819. However, on October 9, 2008, the appeal was deemed to have been withdrawn, and the part against G and nine others in the above judgment became final and conclusive.

In response to the above judgment, the Plaintiff appealed as Seoul High Court 2008Na3796, and the above court dismissed the Defendant B’s claim for the registration of ownership transfer on September 10, 2009 on the ground that “The sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B was not a sales contract but an accord and satisfaction agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and is null and void in violation of Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act.”

The Supreme Court rendered a final appeal by Defendant B, who is dissatisfied with the above appellate judgment, and appealed by the Supreme Court Decision 2009Da84097, but the above appellate judgment became final and conclusive on December 24, 2009 upon the dismissal of the final appeal.

Not more than G and 9 others.