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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. D and E, and C are claims-related 1) D are the Cheongju-si U-Ground officetels (hereinafter “instant officetel”).

(2) On September 30, 201, upon the progress of the construction project, C was responsible for and treated the unpaid construction cost, instead of extending the name of the owner of the instant officetel, and was paid KRW 230 million (cash purchase right equivalent to KRW 100 million and KRW 130 million). Meanwhile, the unpaid construction cost incurred in relation to the instant officetel construction was KRW 40 million for Taeline Construction Co., Ltd., and KRW 270 million for GIST, KRW 45 million for H, KRW 80 million for I Company (J) and KRW 50 million, including KRW 50 million for Geum River (new materials).

3) With respect to the foregoing unpaid construction cost, (1) on November 23, 2009, Taedong Construction Co., Ltd. renounced the claim for the unpaid construction cost against E. ② G filed a lawsuit against E seeking payment of construction cost under the Seoul Western District Court 201Kahap1302. On February 9, 2012, the above court rendered a judgment ordering the Plaintiff (G) to pay KRW 270 million and interest interest, and the above judgment became final and conclusive. ③ H transferred the claim for construction cost of KRW 45,40,000 to E around July 2015. ④ An order was issued against E to pay the unpaid construction cost, and E filed a lawsuit under the name of H (Y District Court 2014Kadan12647). The judgment was rejected on May 8, 2016, which did not exercise the right to claim for construction cost under the name of the owner of the building in the instant lawsuit, and the judgment was dismissed on May 4, 2016.

D has filed a criminal complaint against C and E as a crime of fraud, and D, C and E on February 18, 2013.