2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. Status 1) Plaintiff A and B are the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”).

(2) Plaintiff C is the co-owner of the building of this case, and Plaintiff C is the truster entrusted with the building of this case with Plaintiff A and B’s children. 2) E is the person providing real estate consulting services, and from March 2014, on behalf of the Plaintiffs, on behalf of the Plaintiffs, from March 1, 2014.

3) The Defendant is a corporation established in Korea by F, an international clothing distribution company, on September 4, 2009, and a company that distributes and sells clothes and shoes in Korea. 4) G (H) served as the Defendant’s employee from December 2, 2010 to October 2014. From July 201, the store development team worked for the store development team to be in charge of store lease and other functions.

B. On January 27, 2014, Plaintiff C sent the e-mail that proposed the Defendant’s shop occupants to G in charge of the Defendant’s store lease business, and then sent the design drawings of the instant building to G on the following day. (2) On February 26, 2014, Plaintiff C sent e-mail to G, stating that “A would stop the ongoing contract and proceed with the Defendant’s shop occupants if the Defendant wishes to reside in the instant building.”

3) G sent an e-mail reply to the effect that “the Defendant also intended to sell the main store in the instant building, but the Defendant’s salesroom occupants need to obtain a determination of the head office Sweden.” On March 6, 2014, the Plaintiff sent an e-mail reply to the effect that if there exists a CAD drawings of the instant building, the e-mail reply was sent.” On March 6, 2014, the Plaintiff C sent the e-mail reply to G that “the e-mail sent to the main store occupants, if there is an active cooperation and intent with the owner of the building, it may secure a Grandmark in the previous North Korean business district while reducing costs.”