1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

On December 1, 2012, the defendant belongs to the plaintiff in 2010.

1. The reasons why this court should explain concerning this part of the circumstances of the disposition are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, No. 2 through No. 21, and No. 1) except for the following matters. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In addition, the second part of the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance "E who has jointly purchased the land of this case" is "E" of the same size as the land of this case.

It shall be changed to “EA” jointly purchased with B.

2. The plaintiff's argument B, along with the non-party E, decided to jointly purchase the land and E's share of KRW 362 million and share the purchase price with KRW 1/2,000,000 and to transfer the ownership of each 1/2. However, the non-party E paid the purchase price with the public funds of the F church whose head is the non-party E and then paid the purchase price with KRW 181,00,000 to the church and to return it to the church.

However, on August 2003, FIC knew that E’s public fund embezzlement was conducted by FIC, and B returned to FIC the sum of KRW 181 million,00,000,000,000 and KRW 46 million,000,000,000,000, which constitute the purchase price of the instant land shares.

Therefore, even though the actual acquisition value of the instant land was KRW 181 million, the instant disposition that applied the conversion price to the Defendant is illegal, which was based on the fact that the Defendant cannot know the actual acquisition value on a different premise.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The facts of recognition 1) B and E purchased the shares of the instant land and E from Non-Party H on November 25, 2002 and completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of 575.165/1,75 shares. At the same time, payment of purchase price was made through E, which is the head of the F church, as the public funds of a church. 2) The F church demanded the transfer of E and E’s shares of the instant land and E, because it becomes aware of the utilization of E’s public funds around August 2003.