With respect to 1/2 shares of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 between Defendant A, B and D.

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid association established under the Act on Installment Transactions for the prevention of and compensation for damage to consumers arising in relation to the mutual aid service business, and D (hereinafter “D”) is a company that operates the mutual aid service business as a prepaid installment business operator.

A mutual aid contract provider (D) recognizes that the mutual aid agreement is subject to the mutual aid agreement with the Plaintiff in entering into a mutual aid transaction agreement.

(1) In case where a mutual aid contractr has caused a mutual aid accident due to the causes as stipulated in Article 27 (4) of the Installment Transactions Act and the mutual aid association has paid the mutual aid money, the mutual aid contractr shall compensate the mutual aid association for it as stipulated in the mutual aid contract and the mutual aid association’s regulations.

(4) A person liable to pay compensation for consumer damage pursuant to Article 27 (including a contract for indemnity insurance against consumer damage, etc.) of the Act on Installment Transactions (including a contract for indemnity insurance against consumer damage) shall promptly pay the compensation when any of the following causes for payment occurs:

(2) Where a prepaid installment business operator falls under any of the following cases, the Mayor/Do Governor may revoke his/her registration:

3. Where the consumer indemnity insurance contract, etc. is terminated;

B. From March 18, 2014 to March 17, 2015, D concluded a mutual aid agreement with the Plaintiff at KRW 7,592,15,141, setting the credit limit from March 18, 2014 to March 17, 2015. The details of the relevant provisions regarding the case of a mutual aid accident are as follows.

C. On April 3, 2015, the Plaintiff: “D did not submit a renewal document of D’s mutual aid contract within the due date; did not pay the cancellation refund to mass consumers; and at the time of a field investigation by the Fair Trade Commission, the Plaintiff was suspected of failing to faithfully report the advance payment to the Plaintiff.”