1. On February 6, 2018, Seoul Western District Court Decision 2017Na32903 (main office), and 2017Na32934 (Counterclaim) against the Defendant’s Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The judgment 1) The defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as Seoul Western District Court 2015Gaso5890, the Seoul Western District Court 2015Gaso580, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant as a counterclaim. The above court dismissed the defendant's main claim on February 8, 2017, and rendered a judgment that partly accepted the plaintiff's counterclaim. 2) As to this, the defendant filed an appeal with the Seoul Western District Court 2017Na32903 (main claim), 2017Na32934 (Counterclaim) (Counterclaim) and the above court sentenced the judgment (hereinafter referred to as "prior judgment") on February 6, 2018, which became final and conclusive at that time.

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, the Plaintiff of this case) pays to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, and the Defendant of this case) 7,89,371 won with interest of 6% per annum from January 1, 2016 to February 6, 2018, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s remaining principal claim and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim are dismissed, respectively.

2. The total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the remainder, respectively, by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

3. Paragraph (1) of this Article:

Paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.

B. According to the preceding judgment, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction (hereinafter “instant compulsory auction”) of real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) by a prior judgment, a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) and a corporeal movables seizure (hereinafter “instant corporeal movables seizure”).

C. On March 23, 2018, the Plaintiff’s deposit for repayment designated the Defendant as the principal under the pretext of the judgment amount and enforcement cost based on the preceding judgment and the Seoul Southern District Court’s judgment.