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

A. On December 24, 2001, the Plaintiff and the Defendant married between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, but on June 1, 2002, married on June 1, 2002. On July 25, 2002, the Plaintiff and the Defendant again married, and on December 14, 2011, filed an application for confirmation of intention of divorce with the Sungwon District Court in Sungnam Branch of the Sungnam District Court (No. 2011 and 437) and obtained confirmation of intention of divorce from the said court.

B. Division of property and ownership transfer 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant, at the time of the divorce and divorce on December 14, 201, share the following property division agreement (hereinafter “instant property division agreement”)

(2) On January 2, 201, the Defendant agreed to transfer the ownership of 50% shares due to the division of property to the Plaintiff on December 26, 201, pursuant to the instant property division agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, even though the said real estate was owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, due to the divorce between both parties, the Defendant agreed to transfer the ownership of 20% shares due to the division of property to the Plaintiff on December 27, 201. In accordance with the instant property division agreement, the Plaintiff agreed to acquire all the collateral obligations of the right to collateral security (the right to collateral security) on December 26, 201, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the said building to the Defendant on December 27, 2011, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Plaintiff on December 12, 2011.

C. On May 2, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant to confirm that the divorce was null and void by agreement between Suwon District Court Branch Branching 2012ddan4183, Dec. 14, 2011. After that, the Plaintiff asserted that the division ratio between the Plaintiff and the Defendant should be 70:30, by asserting that the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the division of property was manifestly lost fairness by changing the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim. However, the said court of first instance asserted the Plaintiff.