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

A. On July 29, 2003, C completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of this case”) of the maximum debt amount of KRW 39 million with respect to the portion of 1/2,000 square meters of D forest land 20,479 square meters owned by the Plaintiff, and on October 21, 2008, C filed an application for an auction for the exercise of a security right with respect to the said portion with the Suwon District Court E on October 22, 2008.

B. On November 12, 2008, the Plaintiff’s sonF decided the Plaintiff’s obligation to C with C on behalf of the Plaintiff as KRW 30 million (including enforcement expenses of KRW 1.86 million). The Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 10 million to C on the day, and the remaining KRW 20 million to the end of December 2010, and to pay interest of KRW 20 million from January 10, 2009 to the day of repayment.

C. After the above agreement, C withdrawn the above request for auction, and the Plaintiff paid C the agreed amount of KRW 33.7 million including interest, until the end of December 2010, including the payment of KRW 10 million on the date of agreement.

On October 19, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Suwon District Court Decision 201Da77654, stating that the Plaintiff had no choice but to reach an agreement with C to suspend compulsory auction upon the Plaintiff’s filing of a lawsuit claiming the return of the agreed amount, claiming that “C unduly unjust enrichment of KRW 33.7 million,” but the said court rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on February 7, 2012. In the instant case No. 2012Na10253, which was proceeding by the Plaintiff’s appeal, the Defendant appeared and testified as a witness on October 2, 2012, and the said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 15, 2012.

E. Meanwhile, on August 13, 2013, the Plaintiff appears against the Defendant as a witness in the above appellate trial as the Suwon District Court 2013Da79784, the Defendant was present at the said appellate trial with C, and the fact is from G C.