as shown in the attached Form. (Attorney Yu-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

South Yangyang Market (Law Firm Dongin, Attorneys Park Sejong-won et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Coin Assets Trust Co., Ltd. and one other (Law Firm Namsan, Attorneys Jeon-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

September 26, 2013

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Guhap1711 Decided December 4, 2012

1. The plaintiffs dismiss the suit for the primary claim as added in the trial.

2. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. The primary purport of the claim

On March 30, 2012, the Defendant confirmed on March 30, 2012 that a pre-use inspection disposition on ( Address omitted) ground apartment is null and void at the time of Namyang-si, Inc. (the Plaintiff added the primary claim at the trial).

2. Preliminary purport of claim

On March 30, 2012, the Defendant’s disposition of inspection of the use of the above ground apartment shall be revoked on March 30, 2012, in the case of Namyang-si, Inc., the Intervenor joining the Defendant, on the trust of the C

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On March 30, 2012, the Defendant’s disposition of inspection of use on the ground apartment ( Address omitted) shall be revoked on the remaining-in-si, Namyang-si, Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows. Thus, this court's explanation is citing it in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following cases.

A. From 3, 3, 6, 3, 6, 50 to 9, the Plaintiff stated that “The Plaintiff had a significant and apparent defect that the Defendant had conducted a pre-use inspection on the instant apartment even if the construction of infrastructure was not completed under the condition that the housing construction project plan for the instant apartment was approved, and sought confirmation of the invalidity of the instant disposition and the revocation of the instant disposition in preliminary order.”

(b)in the case of 3 pages 10 of the first instance judgment, the term “a confirmation and a confirmation of invalidity” shall be added following the “disposition”.

(c) 6 pages 5 of the first instance court Decision: “The instant disposition” is to add “absent” or “absent” and to delete “absing” 6 and 7.

2. If so, the court of first instance that dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuit for the main claim added in the court of first instance, and that dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuit for the conjunctive claim, is justifiable, and the plaintiffs' appeal against this is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

【Attachment List of Plaintiffs】

Judges Park Jong-nam (Presiding Judge)