On February 4, 2010, the defendant was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment for six months at the Incheon District Court for fraud, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on June 10, 2010.

From March 2007 to July 8, 2010, the Defendant had been employed by the “E” (hereinafter “E”) located on the first floor of the D apartment underground of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Saeina”), as the actual business owner, F and G couple as the business president.

However, in the auction procedure that commenced as a seizure of the Incheon Tax Office, H was awarded the instant letter of interest and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 19, 2007, and he succeeded to the registration of the name of the building that was filed against F’s wife G and its partners, a business owner of the said D apartment trial company, and succeeded to the registration of the name of the building that was filed against F’s wife G and its partners on July 21, 2009, and finally, the Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na34421 decided July 21, 2009, “H paid KRW 30 million to G, etc., and agreed to receive the instant letter of interest.”

Nevertheless, on August 209, the Defendant filed an objection against the Defendant’s husband and wife on the ground that he had the right to share 35% of the instant company and the right to lease to the health center, etc. against the Defendant’s husband and wife on August 20, 2009, and filed an objection against the third party (In Incheon District Court 2009No. 14483, 1483) to the effect that he/she would refuse compulsory execution of the said building, and subsequently, received the judgment from the above court on December 18, 2009, and thereafter, filed an objection against the grant of the grant of succession to the same purport on February 2, 2010 (In Incheon District Court 2010No10503, Jul. 6, 2010). However, the Defendant was dismissed on July 6, 2010.

1. The Defendant, as to the members, was well aware that the Defendant did not have the right to operate the instant letter and the healthcare room in a normal manner, even if he issued membership rights to the instant letter and the healthcare room to those who enter the instant house, and was legally aware of the fact that the Defendant had no right to operate the instant letter and the healthcare room.

However, the defendant from December 6, 2009.