2...

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff sought damages from tort or nonperformance and return of unjust enrichment against the Defendants.

(The following is as shown in [Attachment 1] and [Attachment 2] attached to the legal brief submitted by the Plaintiff as of December 22, 2016, in detail by Defendant B, the lessee of Yongsan-gu Seoul, and the “instant vehicle” refers to E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E, which is owned by the Defendants).

[Attachment 1] Items for claiming non-prosecution temporary tort Nos. 1, B, 1,587,00 won, including cancellation penalty for F GF G on July 7, 2015; KRW 1,586,000; Defendant B; KRW 320,000 for repair on November 28, 2015; KRW 10,000 for non-prosecution non-prosecution disposition on July 7, 2015; KRW 4,00,000 for KRW 4; KRW 0,000 for Defendant B, KRW 10,000 for non-prosecution disposition on July 7, 2015; KRW 10,000 for KRW 5,00 for KRW 30,00 for KRW 5,00 for KRW 80,00 for KRW 4,00 for KRW 5,00 for KRW 5,00 for KRW 2,000 for the other party’s temporary refund; and KRW 19,5,036,58.200 won for the market value

B. With regard to the allegations in Tables 1 and 2, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, such as the written evidence Nos. 1 and 2, alone, is insufficient to acknowledge Defendant B’s tort liability or Plaintiff’s assertion regarding termination penalty, cost of mobile phone purchase, cost of repair of correction device of the real estate of this case, etc. As such, this part of the allegation is without merit. 2) / [Attachment 1] as to the assertion in the No. 3 [Attachment 1] No. 3, 4, and 5, it is insufficient to recognize this part of the assertion to the effect that the written evidence No.

3) In relation to the assertion of Table 1 Nos. 6 and 7, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s mental suffering is caused by Defendant B’s act only by the descriptions and images of evidence Nos. 6 and 7.