1. The plaintiff's appeal and the third preliminary claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is that the court’s reasoning is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where each “Defendant” in the fourth and the first instance judgment multiplied by the fourth and the first instance judgment as “G of a social welfare foundation,” and this part of the reasoning of the judgment is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. On January 2, 2005, the representative E of the primary claimant agreed on January 2, 2005 that the Plaintiff shall return the instant real estate to the Plaintiff when it is necessary for the Plaintiff and the actual owner of the instant real estate and the Plaintiff’s spouse, before contributing the instant real estate to the Foundation.

On December 30, 2007, the Defendant held a regular meeting of the instant case and resolved the said contents in a regular manner.

Since then, the Plaintiff demanded the return of the instant real estate, and the instant foundation acquired the instant building, etc. on April 14, 2009, and thereby incorporated it into the fundamental property of the instant foundation, thereby creating an alternative property for the instant real estate. As such, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the instant real estate on the ground of an agreement dated January 2, 2005 or agreement dated December 30, 2007.

B. 1) Preliminary Claim No. 1 (Preliminary Claim No. 1) (In spite of the Defendant’s duty to return the instant real estate to the Plaintiff as above, the Defendant asserted that it is legally impossible to return the instant real estate to the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant real estate is the basic property of the instant foundation, and that it is legally impossible to return the real estate to the Plaintiff on the ground that it is the basic property of the instant foundation. The Defendant’s assertion is a refusal of performance

Therefore, the Defendant entered into an agreement to return the instant real estate.