1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) shall dismiss the counterclaim;

2. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) returns to the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant A.

1. We examine whether the counterclaim of this case is legitimate ex officio.

A counterclaim may be brought to the court in which the principal lawsuit is pending before the closure of pleadings (Article 269(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). As such, a counterclaim raised after the closing of pleadings in the principal lawsuit is unlawful as it lacks the relevant requirements.

Therefore, the counterclaim in this case is unlawful due to its lack of the requirements, since the fact that the counterclaim in this case was filed on May 10, 2016, which was after the closing of argument on May 3, 2016.

Therefore, pursuant to Articles 270 and 219 of the Civil Procedure Act, the counterclaim of this case is dismissed without holding any pleadings.

2. Determination on the claim of this case

A. The facts of recognition are as follows: (1) The Plaintiff and Taecheon-do Co., Ltd.; (2) Nam Jeju-do Energy Co., Ltd.; (3) Nam Jeju-do Co., Ltd.; and (4) companies, other than the Plaintiff and Taecheon-do Co., Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “six companies including the Plaintiff”) were permitted to engage in development activities to convert mountainous districts and install solar batteries for four parcels, other than the instant land owned by C, for the purpose of using solar power production facilities for their entry into the Republic of Korea on May 20, 2009, for the purpose of using solar power production facilities in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”).

(2) However, following the Defendant’s purchase of the instant land from C on October 1, 2009 in KRW 14,000,000, six companies, including the Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff, were consulted with the Defendant to purchase the instant land, and on March 22, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant purchased KRW 1/6 of each of the instant land in KRW 10,000,000 and paid the purchase price on April 30, 2010 and completed the procedures for share transfer registration on March 30, 2010. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid the said purchase price to the Defendant, but the Defendant did not implement the procedures for share transfer registration.

(3) Meanwhile, on the other hand.