A. The progress to the appellate court of the relevant case and the Plaintiff’s provisional payment 1) Kimhae-si B apartment No. 503 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

2) On June 19, 2013, 201, 204, 202, including C, etc., the number of buyers filed a lawsuit seeking return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the excess amount by asserting that the pre-sale conversion price of the apartment of this case exceeds the standard prescribed by the relevant laws and regulations against the Plaintiff who constructed and sold the apartment of this case at Sung-nam branch of Suwon District Court (hereinafter “Seoul High Court”) (hereinafter “Seoul High Court”). On June 19, 2013, the above court dismissed some of 202 buyers including C, etc., and rendered a judgment of citing part of the buyer’s claim, and rendered a judgment of citing part of the buyer’s claim, 202 buyers including C, etc. (hereinafter “Seoul High Court”) appealed and appealed against the judgment of the first instance court, and the remaining buyers were transferred to the Plaintiff’s appeal and appointed the Defendant as the litigation representative of the appellate court.

On January 28, 2014, the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's appeal against the remaining buyers by changing the part concerning 168 buyers who appealed from the judgment of the first instance.

3) On February 28, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 332,335,470, a total sum of the 332,335,470, and damages for delay up to February 28, 2014, including KRW 60,297,058, which are the total sum of the 392,632,528, and damages for delay up to February 28, 2014, to the Defendant, who is the legal representative of the buyers, in accordance with the above appellate judgment. (B) The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the above appellate judgment and filed an appeal. On January 28, 2016, the Supreme Court accepted the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal by the Plaintiff, and reversed the part of the said appellate judgment against the Plaintiff and sentenced

(2014Da205652) The Seoul High Court changed the first instance judgment on November 10, 2016, thereby citing only 19 claims among the buyers, and the remainder.