2. The costs of quasi-examination shall be borne by the defendant.

On November 22, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking payment of the agreed amount of KRW 289,130,800, and damages for delay as stipulated in the instant agreement, by asserting that, on November 6, 2018, an agreement was made with the Defendant on the return, etc. of the construction cost already paid with respect to the construction cost, etc., after entering into the said agreement with the Defendant on construction works for building C and D (hereinafter “instant construction contract”).

B. On April 22, 2019, the above court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 289,000,000,000 until July 1, 2019, and if the Defendant fails to pay the said money by the payment date, the Defendant shall pay the unpaid amount plus damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the above payment date to the day of full payment.” As to the above ruling of recommending reconciliation, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not raise an objection within two weeks from the respective delivery date (the Defendant received the above ruling of recommending reconciliation as of April 25, 2019). As such, the above ruling of recommending reconciliation became final and conclusive on May 10, 2019.

C. However, only on May 21, 2019, when the period of filing an objection against the above decision of recommending reconciliation was lapsed, the Defendant filed an objection against the said decision of recommending reconciliation, and the said court rendered a decision to dismiss the Defendant’s objection on May 23, 2019.

2. The main point of the Defendant’s assertion is that the parties to the instant construction contract are not the Plaintiff and the Defendant, but the Plaintiff and the limited liability company E, and the Defendant did not have the standing to

In addition, it was true that the defendant received the above decision of recommending reconciliation on April 25, 2019, but it was known that the above decision of recommending reconciliation was confirmed on May 13, 2019 because it did not properly examine the contents of the above decision of recommending reconciliation.