A. On January 5, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) determined KRW 100 million on August 5, 2010 and lent to the Defendant (name C before the name of the name of the Plaintiff) at the maturity of KRW 50 million; and (b) monthly interest.

(hereinafter “the instant loan”). (b) The instant loan.

On February 10, 2011, the Defendant prepared a letter to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 680 million with the following content:

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”): Indication of real estate purchased and sold in the form of payment: The area of the forest: 3,000 square meters;

2. Date of the terms and conditions of the contract: The seller of the purchase price on January 7, 201: 2.550 million won: the seller of the E Apartment-gu, Yongsan-gu, Gyeonggi-do: the purchaser of the Plaintiff’s real estate in Goyang-gu, Young-gu, Busan-gu, Busan-do, G, and H: In the sale of the Plaintiff’s real estate in Goyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoul-gu, Seoul-do, and the purchaser of the purchase, the purchaser shall pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 680 million until June 30, 201, and the purchaser shall pay the purchase price of KRW 5 million to K at its design cost, KRW 2 million to L, KRW 63 billion, KRW 510 million, KRW 500 million, KRW 500 million, and KRW 500,000 to M.

Provided, That in writing, the plaintiff shall terminate the provisional seizure of the real estate on the Ncheon-si, Gyeonggi-do and four parcels owned by the defendant, and shall pay the plaintiff 680 million won out of the remainder loan at the time of conversion of mountainous district.

C. In the appellate court of the fraudulent case against the Defendant (Seoul High Court 2017No3075), on January 12, 2018, the Seoul High Court found the Defendant guilty of the charge of fraud and sentenced the Defendant two years and six months and six months of imprisonment with labor for the Defendant, by deceiving the Plaintiff even though the Defendant did not have any ability or intent to return KRW 680,000,000 until the agreed date, and thereby inducing the Plaintiff to waive the right to collateral security (hereinafter the “mortgage”) with respect to KRW 100,000,000, which was secured by the Plaintiff as a security for KRW 100,000,000.

(c).