1. Among the lawsuits for quasi-examination of this case, the part concerning the grounds for quasi-examination under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act is divided.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged by integrating the contents in Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole purport of the pleadings.

The Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is an organization comprised of persons asserting that ① Defendant (Quasi-Re-Appellant; hereinafter “Defendant”) limited liability Company C (hereinafter “Defendant”) was awarded a subcontract for the new construction of the apartment in the attached Table No. 4 of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from Defendant Company (“Defendant Company”) (hereinafter “Defendant Company”); ② as Defendant Company did not purchase the apartment in the attached Table No. 1, they prepared a false sales contract as if they were the buyer, and then suffered considerable loss in the amount of the loan by receiving the loan under the name of the buyer, ③ who paid part of the purchase price of the apartment in the instant case from Defendant Company, but did not have been transferred ownership.

B. On December 31, 2004, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the registration of ownership transfer and the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage against the Defendant Company on the ground that the agreement on payment in kind is null and void, against the Defendant Company B and the person who was established by the said company, whose ownership of the instant apartment was transferred from the Defendant Company in the name of payment in kind, and the person who was established by the said company.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant quasi-deliberation suit”). C.

On September 22, 2006, the conciliation protocol (hereinafter “instant conciliation protocol”) was prepared with the same content as the content indicated in the “mediation clause” in the attached protocol of the case.