1. Each share indicated in the separate sheet among each real estate listed in the separate sheet between T Co. and the Defendants.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 8, 2014, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order as to the amount until KRW 979,00,000,000 among the claims under an enforcement agency contract for an obligor U-third-party obligor T Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “T”) based on an authentic deed for a promissory note of KRW 979,00,000 at par value, which was drawn up and issued by U.S. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “U”), and issued a seizure and collection order as to the amount until the amount reaches KRW 979,00,000 among the claims under the enforcement agency contract for the obligor T Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “T”). The seizure and collection order were served on T on August 13,

B. On September 3, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against T to claim the collection amount (hereinafter “collection amount case”).

On January 12, 2017, the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2016Na2015295) rendered a judgment that "T shall pay to the Plaintiff 979,00,000 won and the interest calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from September 19, 2014 to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment." The above judgment became final and conclusive on May 15, 2017.

C. The Defendants are the merchants and shareholders of T’s affiliated companies and shareholders.

On December 31, 2015, the Defendants filed a claim for the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “pre-trial case”) based on the termination of title trust with respect to each share (total 46/18 shares in the separate sheet) listed in the separate sheet among the respective real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) with Defendant S as the designated party. Te submitted a written reply to the effect that the Defendants’ claims are accepted and sent a duplicate of the said reply to the Defendant S on January 12, 2016.

The Defendants changed their subsequent claims from the termination of title trust to the return of unjust enrichment, and on February 3, 2016, the said court rendered a decision of recommending reconciliation (hereinafter referred to as “decision of recommending reconciliation in this case”) accepting the Defendants’ claims as they are.

The decision of recommending reconciliation of this case shall be made by the parties.