1. The participation of the supplementary intervenor AT by the defendant N Co., Ltd. in the supplementary intervenor AT is denied.

2. An objection to the trial;

[Scope of Adjudication] As to the instant key real estate, the Plaintiffs were dismissed even though they demanded the DefendantO to use the pertinent real estate, and the Plaintiffs were dismissed even though they requested the DefendantO and N to confirm the right to request the approval of use.

In addition, with respect to the claim for the performance of the transfer registration of ownership due to each of the identical agreements in relation to the issues of the instant real estate against the Defendant N, Plaintiff B, C, D, F, G, J, K, and Q, the claim for this part of the claim was partially dismissed.

Since the plaintiffs did not appeal against this, the part against the plaintiffs in the first instance shall be excluded from this Court's judgment.

1. The reasons for this part of the facts of recognition are as follows: (a) in addition to adding the following items to Chapter 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance, Defendant O and the corporation N in the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A person shall be appointed.

C. On May 21, 2012, H died in the first instance trial, and Plaintiff AO, AP, and Q inherited the property of the deceased H.

A person shall be appointed.

2. Determination as to whether Defendant N’s motion to intervene in AT by the Intervenor

A. On February 6, 2014, the Seoul High Court rendered a decision on February 6, 2014, on the grounds that Defendant N’s supplementary intervenor AT (hereinafter “Defendant N’s supplementary intervenor”) had suspended Defendant N’s performance of duties as Defendant N’s internal director and representative director until the judgment on this case becomes final and conclusive.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant was not only the representative director of Defendant N, but also the single shareholder indicated as possessing all the shares on the Defendant N’s registry, and the execution of duties was suspended due to the above provisional disposition decision, but also the AU dismissed Defendant N’s previous attorney without the permission of the provisional disposition court.

Therefore, it is true.