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

A. On May 11, 201, the Plaintiff decided to purchase a non-metallic material recycling business site located in Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu (hereinafter “instant business site”) from the Defendant for KRW 500 million.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant transaction”: Provided, That the sales contract includes the amount of KRW 400 million.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 300 million to the Defendant on May 11, 2011, KRW 120 million on May 12, 2011, and KRW 25 million on January 14, 2012 under the said contract.

On February 10, 2012, the Defendant filed an application for provisional seizure to receive the remaining purchase and sale price, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant paid KRW 45 million to the Defendant, the Defendant agreed to withdraw various lawsuits, but did not hold a civil or criminal liability between the parties in the future (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and paid KRW 45 million to the Defendant on February 16, 2012.

C. On November 2, 2012, the Mapo-gu head having jurisdiction over the instant place of business notified the Plaintiff as an illegal facility, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not report a waste disposal facility, which requires the establishment report of the strike compressed period established in the instant place of business.

Accordingly, on November 13, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for approval for the establishment report of waste disposal facilities (recycling facilities) at Goyang-si. On November 26, 2012, the instant place of business was confirmed from Goyang-si as a development-restricted area that is not possible to install waste disposal facilities under the relevant statutes.

On December 12, 2012, the Geumcheonyang head of the Gu issued a corrective order and an order to correct the act to restore the instant workplace to the original state to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 10 evidence (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. (1) The Defendant, on February 10, 2012, agreed with the Plaintiff on the dispute concerning the instant sales contract, and thus, there is no benefit to protect the rights of the instant lawsuit.