1. The portion of the claim for the performance of the joint name and joint title among the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around October 2007, the Defendant newly constructed a building of E churches located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu (hereinafter “instant church”).

In the process, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a total of KRW 50,600,000 ( KRW 5,000,000 on October 30, 2007, KRW 20,000,000 on December 13, 2007, KRW 20,000 on December 24, 2007, KRW 20,000 on December 24, 2007, KRW 5,60,00 on December 28, 2007) as the subrogated payment for the said new construction cost.

B. On December 11, 2007, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted an agreement (Evidence A No. 1; hereinafter “instant agreement”) (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

The contents are as follows:

A (the plaintiff and the hereinafter the same shall apply) pastors A (the plaintiff and the hereinafter the same shall apply) pay 50,600,000 won for the construction cost of the instant church as the subrogated payment to the pastors B (the defendant and the hereinafter the same shall apply).

C. Foods

1. At the same time as payment of KRW 50,600,000 shall be made by A, and at the same time, registration shall be made under the joint name of this land and buildings, and the ratio of such rights shall be 1/2 (half).

Provided, That the registration of joint names such as buildings shall be issued simultaneously;

b.2. A wood and B shall be co-convened.

3. The purpose of this is to make the FIC meetings with the largest exemplary belief of world relics and to guide the Dogwon, new schools, missionary activities, welfare preference, etc.

C. On the other hand, on December 13, 2007, the Defendant drafted a receipt (Evidence No. 2 of the A) stating that “the church shall simultaneously with the completion certificate” to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 (the defendant's seal impression part is presumed to be the authenticity of the whole document because there is no dispute over the defendant's seal impression part, and there is no evidence to prove that the above document was forged by the plaintiff, but there is no defense that it was forged by the plaintiff), Gap's 5, 11, 12, 15, and 17, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the joint name and the claim for the implementation of joint title among the lawsuit in this case

A. The gist of this defense is that the Plaintiff against the Defendant based on the instant agreement.