1. The Defendants are to the Plaintiff:

A. Of the three floors of the buildings listed in the attached Form, each point of the indication of the attached Form A, B, C, D, and A.

1. At the time of the strike of recognition, the registration of the entry of the decision on voluntary commencement of auction E for the entire D-ground buildings was completed on August 10, 2012 with respect to the entire D-ground buildings, and the fact that the Plaintiff purchased the whole building in the relevant voluntary auction procedure on June 14, 2013 can be recognized either as a dispute between the parties, or as a whole, by taking into account the entry of the evidence No. 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. It is called '301' as the building mentioned in the text.

India Claim

A. (1) Defendant B’s assertion that the Defendants asserted as follows: (a) obtained a subcontract from G around July 2008 with its partner F, and completed the construction work around September 2008 after he was subcontracted the construction work for the construction of a new building on D ground at the time of strike from G; (b) however, Defendant A, who occupied from May 201 to 301 and was de facto in a de facto marital relationship with him, possesses 301, and was in the exercise of the right of retention.

(2) On June 1, 2008, the Intervenor’s assertion by the Defendant Intervenor was subcontracted with G on 73.5 million won for the construction of the facilities and pipes among the new construction of the D-ground building at the time of the strike, and completed the construction on or around September 2008. In addition, the construction was subcontracted with the construction of the 42 million won for the partial removal and repair of the building, and the construction was completed, but the construction was not yet paid 7.5 million won out of the total construction cost, and it was an indirect possession of 301 units via Defendant B and the exercise of the right of retention.

(3) The Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of construction price by Defendant B and the Defendant’s assistant intervenor asserted that the three-year extinctive prescription period has expired since the end of September 2008 when the construction was completed.

B. Whether the claim for construction price has been extinguished or not, the obligation of the Defendant B and the Defendant’s Intervenor shall be extinguished by the short-term extinctive prescription of three years as the obligation to the contracted person

However, the claims of the Defendant B and the Defendant’s assistant intervenor were due on September 2008, when they completed the construction, and they asserted the claim for the construction cost as asserted by the Defendant B and the Defendant’s assistant intervenor. From May 2012 to May 301, 201.