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

A. On September 16, 2013, the Plaintiff and three other parties including the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs side”), including the Plaintiff, invested KRW 300 million in the Defendant’s business (hereinafter referred to as “instant investment”) and the Plaintiff’s side entered into an investment contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”) by preparing a contract execution agreement with the intent to participate in the Defendant’s business operation (hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”).

3. In investing KRW 300 million to the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s side shall deposit KRW 30 million as the down payment on September 16, 2013, and deposit KRW 270 million up to September 30, 2013.

11. On September 16, 2013, the foregoing matters take effect on the part of September 16, 2013, the Plaintiff’s side will be treated as null and void this contract in the event that 300 million won of the commitment is completed, and the Plaintiff’s side will not be required to bring civil and criminal measures.

13. The defendant extended the 15-day period when the plaintiff's side becomes aware of the fulfillment of the promise.

B. Of the instant agreement, the content relating to the investment of the Plaintiff on the part of the Plaintiff is as follows.

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million to the Defendant on September 16, 2013, and KRW 20 million on September 30, 2013, but did not pay KRW 250 million to the Defendant the remainder of the Plaintiff’s investment under the instant contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. In relation to paragraph (12) of the agreement of this case, the purport of the Plaintiff’s 300 million won investment on the part of the Plaintiff is that the agreement of this case would not have been completed, and in this case, it is merely that the Plaintiff would not claim damages, etc. from the Plaintiff, and ② if the agreement of this case is interpreted as a non-exclusive contract of this case, it is a case that is contrary to social order, and thus, it is invalid, since it is the case that is contrary to social order, and ③ the Plaintiff’s investment under the contract of this case.