1. All appeals against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff C’s principal lawsuit and the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s counterclaim.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following “the part which is dismissed or added.” Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

(Provided, That the part of the main claim against Defendant E is separated and confirmed as seen earlier, the corresponding part is excluded). 2. Scrapping or adding the part is as follows. 6. 1 to 8. 10 of the first instance judgment.

The Plaintiff entered into a contract for the transfer of shares with Defendant C and G on January 14, 2015, and the agreement for the transfer of ownership of land under the former part of Article 10(2) of the contract (hereinafter referred to as “agreement for the transfer of ownership of land”).

(1) As the Plaintiff and Defendant C have no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C, Defendant C is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on an agreement on January 14, 2015 with respect to the land Nos. 1 and 2, barring any special circumstance. The first instance judgment of the court of first instance, stating that “the Defendant” of the first instance judgment No. 7, is “Defendant D”.

The 12th written judgment of the first instance court and the 10th written judgment of the same party are referred to as 'Defendant D' respectively.

Under the 12th sentence of the first instance judgment, the plaintiff's new argument in this court is added to the following judgment.

3) In other words, Defendant D received an order to reinstate the illegal building (specific packaging, etc.) installed on the land Nos. 3 and 5 from Kimhae-si on the ground that Defendant C had illegally changed the form and quality of the land without obtaining permission to divert farmland on the land No. 3 and 5 at the time when Defendant C operated the Plaintiff Company. Defendant C received a summary order on the ground that the Plaintiff Company occupied and used each of the above land did not restore the above land to its original state, but neglected the order to reinstate the land, and accordingly, Defendant C received a summary order on the ground that the Plaintiff Company did not perform the order to reinstate the land