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

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

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B, C, and D

A. On December 15, 2003, the Plaintiff’s assertion F entered into a sales contract with Defendant B, C, and D with the purchase price of KRW 1.5 billion for shares of KRW 69,223 square meters in G forest G, Yangju-si, which is owned by the said Defendants (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On January 15, 2004, the Plaintiff paid the said Defendants KRW 150 million on the date of the contract, and KRW 250 million on January 15, 2004, the intermediate payment of KRW 250 million on January 15, 2004, and KRW 200 million on August 10, 2004.

After that, on October 22, 2013, F bequeathed the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and died on June 23, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired the status of purchaser of the instant real estate.

However, the above Defendants denied the conclusion of the first sale contract of this case and failed to perform their duty to cooperate in the construction of roads and authorization and permission. Thus, the Plaintiff’s delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to cancel the first sale contract of this case. The above Defendants shall pay KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff, respectively.

B. We examine the validity of the first sale contract of this case as to the cause of claim.

First, we look at the authenticity of the evidence No. 2 (a sales contract) attached to the above sales contract, and the certificate of personal seal impression in the name of Defendant B, attached to the above sales contract, is issued on September 21, 2004, and issued on December 15, 2003, which is the date of the conclusion of the first sales contract of this case. Moreover, the defendant B’s seal affixed to the above sales contract is different from the above certificate of personal seal impression, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the above sales contract, and thus, it cannot be admitted as evidence No. 2.

In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant B’s seal affixed with the evidence Nos. 7 and 8 (each receipt) is the Defendant B’s seal, and rather, according to the purport of the Defendant B’s evidence No. 3 and the entire pleadings, each of the above facts are examined.