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

A. On September 5, 2013, with respect to the instant share, the registration of transfer of the instant share was made from the Plaintiff to the Defendant on the ground of sale as of August 6, 2013 (hereinafter “instant sale”).

B. On August 6, 2013, in the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, a sales contract consisting of KRW 84 million with respect to the sales of shares in the instant case was prepared.

【Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence A Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) Determination as to the claim for cancellation of a sales contract 1) The Plaintiff did not perform the obligation of the Defendant to pay the purchase price of KRW 84 million as stipulated in the instant sales contract, and the instant sales contract was cancelled on this ground. Therefore, the registration of transfer of shares in this case is null and void, and the Defendant claims that the Plaintiff is obligated to cancel the registration of transfer of shares in this case. We examine the following facts: (ii) The Defendant did not dispute; and (iii) comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the transfer of shares in this case, the sales contract (Evidence A No. 1) was made in the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant with the purchase price of KRW 84 million in relation to the transfer of shares in this case; and (iv) the fact that

3) On the other hand, the following facts are acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 7, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number, and witness D's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff did not complete the transfer registration of the share of this case to the defendant under the contract of this case, but completed the transfer registration of the share of this case to the defendant designated by D in lieu of the repayment of the obligation to return the amount of KRW 70 million to D.

Thus, the defendant is not obligated to pay the plaintiff KRW 84 million as stipulated in the sales contract of this case.

On the contrary premise, the Plaintiff’s objection is against the foregoing premise.