A. On December 16, 2014, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) entered into a contract with the Defendant on the lease of scoodboo pool, etc. (hereinafter “instant swimming pool”) on the second floor of the building D in Suwon-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant building”) as follows (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

D Article 2 (Lease subject to Lease Agreement) (1) “A” (referring to a company other than a cattle; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall provide “B” (referring to the defendant; hereinafter the same shall apply) with the following subject matters so that customers of “B” can smoothly use Skinbane:

1. D Scood's grass pool operated by "A" and marine Scood's cuscushion;

2. Article 3 (Security Deposit) (1) of the right to use Scoo Cuber’s equipment related to the pool “B” must pay 30 million won as security deposit to “A”.

(2) Profits shall be distributed to 5:5 in principle, excluding expenses incurred in operating facilities each year, and shall be settled at the end of each month and deposited in principle.

(3) Annual C (States) Minimum 50 million won shall be guaranteed, and the amount shall be subtracted from the security deposit when the amount of 50 million won is not guaranteed from 5:5 income.

Article 8 (Term of Contract) The effective period of this Agreement shall be one year from the date of open after the completion of D and shall notify each other of the terms of the mutual extension contract and the expiration intention two months before the expiration of the contract.

B. Since then, the instant lease contract was renewed once, and the term of lease was extended until December 15, 2016.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Nonparty Company as the Changwon District Court 2014Gahap6237, and received a ruling of recommending reconciliation from the said court to the effect that “the Nonparty Company shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 4 billion and interest thereon,” and the said ruling of recommending reconciliation was finalized on July 28, 2015.

On August 26, 2015, the Plaintiff is based on the original copy of the above Reconciliation Recommendation.