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

A. On July 16, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a joint investment agreement with C, D, E, F, G, and H and 19 parcels of golf course development projects, including H, Kimcheon-si, and C, etc. to invest funds, and to delegate the overall progress and management of the business to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “Agreement of July 16, 2014”). For the progress of the aforementioned project, the Defendant Corporation was established on July 17, 2014, and E was appointed as an internal director by the representative director, I, F, C, and J (Plaintiff’s wife) and the Plaintiff as the auditor.

B. On March 9, 2016, the Plaintiff, E, I, F, C, and J appoint the Plaintiff as a general manager for the completion of a golf course and the future operation and management (Paragraph 1), and determine the Plaintiff’s salary as KRW 5 million (Paragraph 7), and determine the total construction cost incurred up to the date and the construction cost in progress as well as the construction cost incurred up to the date and pay the Plaintiff the construction cost incurred in excess thereof.

(11) Paragraph (11) entered into an agreement on the operation of K Golf course with the content of others.

(hereinafter referred to as “Agreement on March 9, 2016”)

Since then, the Plaintiff, J and L, M, E, F, C, and N purchased 3,420 shares of J on May 16, 2016 in the aggregate of L, M 1,710 shares, and M in the aggregate of KRW 45,00 million. The agreement on July 16, 2014 and the agreement on March 9, 2016 is null and void. The Plaintiff, J and their lineal ascendants and descendants renounced their authority over the golf course until May 31, 2016, and the Plaintiff concluded a contract that they do not raise any criminal objection against the contents related to the golf course, and the Plaintiff did not participate in the future.

hereinafter referred to as "contract dated May 16, 2016".

(ii) [Ground of recognition] unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. The Defendant’s judgment on the previous defense on the merits had concluded a special agreement to bring an action on May 16, 2016, and thus, the instant lawsuit asserted that it is unlawful contrary to the non-special agreement to bring an action.

On May 16, 2016, the parties to the contract of May 16, 201 are not the plaintiff and the defendant, and they are on a different premise.