1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) When the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract and entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff, Nonparty C, D, and E (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”).

On June 5, 2003, when the father and wife of the non-party B and F (hereinafter the above husband and wife) are jointly and severally with the husband and wife of the non-party B and F (hereinafter the above husband and wife

(B) The name of the G administrative district in the case of Pakistan, which is located within the area subject to the permission of land transaction contract as owned B, was changed from the “Sari-si L to the “Sari-si G” through the “Sari-si L.” In the case of Pakistan, the name of the G administrative district was changed from the “Sari-si” to the “Sari-si G”; hereinafter referred to as “Sari-si G” instead of distinguishing before and after the change, it is limited to “Sari-si”. In addition, [Attachment 2], the total sum of 23 parcels of each land as indicated in [Attachment 2] and 4,500 square meters (hereinafter “the subject matter of sale

) Of the total amount of KRW 300,000, the seller purchased KRW 1.866 billion, and the seller agreed to obtain the military consent and permission to divert farmland on the said land (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

(2) On June 30, 2003, the Plaintiff et al. paid the seller a down payment of KRW 186 million on the date of the contract, KRW 3772 million on the first intermediate payment, and KRW 70 million on December 31, 2003, KRW 628 million on the second intermediate payment.

3) When Nonparty H, I, and J (hereinafter collectively referred to as the above three persons), collectively, “H, etc.”

On June 5, 2003, the Plaintiff, etc. purchased the remainder of KRW 1500,000, excluding KRW 3000,000,000, out of the subject matter of the instant transaction (see evidence 4) F applied for land transaction permission for agricultural purposes on April 18, 2005 without the military consent and permission on diversion of farmland, and was rejected on April 20, 2005 on the ground that the Plaintiff, etc. was a non-farmer and the farming distance exceeded 20km.

5 Accordingly, F shall not grant permission against the Plaintiff, H, and C on October 18, 2005.