1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant’s transfer income tax of KRW 25,081,740 on July 2, 2014 owed to the Plaintiff on July 2, 2014.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the disposition are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except where the second and fifth "third party" in the judgment of the first instance is "F". Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as stated in the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. According to the settlement agreement prepared by the Plaintiff in the course of acquiring the instant land from B, the acquisition value of the instant land is either 63,632,465 won (the Plaintiff’s claim amounting to 63,632,465 won (the interest on KRW 71,500,000 and the interest thereon - the actual payment) of the Plaintiff’s claim as payment in lieu of the instant land, or 63,00,000 won, which is the sum of the secured claim of KRW 44,000,000,000, which is the total of the secured claim and the actual payment of KRW 19,000,000,000,000 in excess of the transfer value of each of the instant land. However, the Defendant’s disposition that deemed the acquisition value of the instant land as KRW

(b) as shown in the attached Form of the relevant statutes;

(c) The facts subsequent to the facts of the recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement of evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, 11, 17, 1 and 2 (including the branch numbers, if any).

1) The Plaintiff at the voluntary auction procedure on December 8, 2006 (hereinafter “G land”) shall be located within the area of 263 square meters in Namyang-si, Namyang-si.

A) A successful bidder acquired ownership; G land and on the ground of the instant land, unregistered housing (hereinafter “instant building”).

(2) On January 23, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the removal, etc. of the part on the G’s land among the instant buildings as the District Court Decision 2007Gadan3858, which claimed that the Plaintiff was the owner of the instant building and the Plaintiff as the right to dispose of the instant building, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the removal, etc. of the part on the G’s land. The said court until October 10, 2007, the Plaintiff up to October 31, 2007.