1. The quasi-examination of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of quasi-examination shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Following the existence of a ruling recommending a compromise subject to quasi-re-deliberation, the following facts are either no dispute between the parties or are apparent in the records.

On December 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants, claiming registration of preservation of ownership and cancellation of ownership transfer on each real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) as stated in the purport of the claim, and was sentenced to a judgment accepting all the Plaintiff’s claims.

(No. 2015Kadan582). (b) Mancheon District Court 2015Kadan582.

On June 28, 2016, the Defendants appealed (Seoul District Court 2016Na50203), and this Court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation as follows (hereinafter referred to as “decision of recommending quasi-deliberation”). Although the original copy of the ruling was legally served, the said ruling became final and conclusive because the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not raise any objection within the objection period.

Decisions

1. The plaintiff:

A. A. On June 28, 2016, confirmed that the payment of KRW 5,372,120 (the payment of the said money was made upon the incorporation of the said money into an expressway) from Defendant B’s text was made on June 28, 2016;

(b) 1/3 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 7 and 13 (the first part in the name of the plaintiff of the party) and 1/3 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 8 through 12 of the attached sheet (the part in the name of AA, the first part in the name of the plaintiff of the party), are owned by the defendant B;

C. It is confirmed that all the rights (as seen earlier, the money stated in the above paragraph (a) out of the money deposited in the said regular deposit passbook was already paid, excluding the money stated in the above paragraph (a)) to the Defendant B, which was made in the name of the Plaintiff, Defendant (Appointed Party) and one other.

2. The Defendants, the Defendant (Appointeds), and the designated parties shall not claim interest that was not paid due to the termination of the foregoing regular deposit passbook (agricultural Cooperatives, AB) on June 28, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff does not belong to this case.