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

A. On December 2013, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff sought to operate the Plaintiff’s adjacent parking lot (hereinafter “D parking lot”) around Seoul, and that the Plaintiff would pay 30,000,000 won to the Defendants as the principal and interest for each month.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid the Defendants KRW 130,000,000, totaling KRW 120,000,000 on December 16, 2013, and KRW 130,000,000 on December 17, 2013, and the remainder KRW 200,000,000 on December 13, 2013, with the Plaintiff’s real property owned by the Plaintiff as the Defendant B as the debtor.

(hereinafter “instant payment”). However, the Defendants did not pay the principal and interest agreed upon to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Plaintiff against the Defendants in KRW 330,00,00, (1) is the primary claim for the return of the loan, (2) the claim for the return of unjust enrichment for the invalidation of the agreement due to the violation of the Act on the Regulation of the Act on the Collection of Heritage, and (3) the claim for damages due to the conjunctive

B. The Defendants’ assertion is that the Plaintiff invested KRW 330,000,000 in the Seoul D Parking Lot in accordance with the business agreement with Defendant C, and is not leased.

(Defendant C invested KRW 170,00,000. However, the fact that E is a parking lot leasing cycle is obtained by receiving investment money without intent or ability to lease the parking lot, and only did not recover the investment money as of January 31, 2014.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following facts, the Plaintiff’s joint investment in the business operating the Defendant C and Seoul D Parking Lot and paid KRW 330,00,000 to the Defendant C, on the premise that the said payment is a loan, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is based on the premise that the said payment is a loan.