1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of re-adjudications are assessed against the Defendant (Plaintiffs) and the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

The following facts that have become final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial are apparent or apparent in records.

On July 23, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a principal suit against the Defendants as Daegu District Court 2014Gahap8282, and Defendant D filed a counterclaim as the same court 2014Gahap8299, and the said court rendered a judgment dismissing Defendant D’s counterclaim.

(The first instance judgment). B.

As to the judgment of the first instance, both the Plaintiff and the Defendants were dissatisfied with this Court’s 2015Na2523 (principal lawsuit), and 2015Na2530 (Counterclaim), this Court rendered a judgment of partial acceptance of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants, including the change and addition in the appellate court on August 31, 2016, and the alteration of the content of Defendant D’s counterclaim dismissal.

(Judgment of review).

The Defendants appealed against the judgment subject to a retrial by Supreme Court Decision 2016Da41531 (principal suit), 2016Da41548 (Counterclaim), but the final appeal was dismissed on November 24, 2016, and the said judgment was served on the Defendants on November 25, 2016.

The summary of the grounds for the request for retrial by the Defendants is as follows: (a) on November 30, 1998, the E (the Plaintiff’s mother was lost at the time of the judgment of the first and the second instance trial and was unable to submit as evidence; and (b) on November 30, 1998, the Defendants were found to have recently discovered a letter of performance (the evidence Nos. 14, and the performance creditor was Defendant D and the performance creditor were to sell the 2 and 3 floors under personal circumstances; (c) upon having sold the 2 and 3 floors from the Daegu mid-gu Seoul Metropolitan City F building, D would directly receive premiums; and (d) if E or the heir, who is the owner of the building, voluntarily go, would pay KRW 1 billion from the owner of the building, to D, and in the future, to have the intention to live well through life as D. (hereinafter “instant performance letter of this case”).

The judgment subject to a review is believed to have the above statement of performance.