1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) was a juristic person established on June 22, 2009 for the purpose of the pelpel processing and sales business, and the Plaintiff was registered as an intra-company director from June 22, 2009 to April 11, 201, and the Defendant’s husband C was currently registered as a current intra-company director.

B. On January 6, 2012, the land category of the FF factory site owned by the Plaintiff was changed to the factory site in the past.

With respect to the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”), ① the ownership transfer registration based on the sale as of December 16, 201 was completed in the name of the E company on February 2, 201, and ② the ownership transfer registration based on the sale as of May 25, 2012 was completed on May 25, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff, at the present representative director of the E Company, established E Company E Company, which is a missionary business entity that contributes part of its business profits to E Company, with C, H, I, and J. 2) After which only D and C actually invest in E Company and operate the E Company. On September 201, D and C were to purchase the instant real estate from the Plaintiff and obtain a loan as collateral and raise business funds by taking it out as collateral, and the Plaintiff “The Plaintiff shall transfer the ownership of the instant real estate to E Company, KRW 40 million,000,000,000,000,000 won, including the cancellation expenses for the seizure, etc. established on the instant real estate, and KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, and the remaining KRW 100,000,000,00,00 won, as stocks of E Company.”

Accordingly, the Plaintiff accepted the above proposal, and the land category among the real estate in this case cannot be acquired in the name of the juristic person, as it is in the name of the juristic person.