1.(a)

On December 21, 2015, it was concluded between Defendant C and Defendant B on December 21, 2015.

1. Claim against the defendant B

A. On November 24, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she agreed to receive interest at 4% per month for the auction of real estate No. 1 listed in the attached Table 1 attached hereto from Defendant B on November 24, 2015. As such, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum, which is within the limit of the Interest Limitation Act, from November 24, 2015 to May 26, 2016, to the interest accrued from November 24, 2015 and from May 26, 2016 to KRW 6,065,65,573 that the Plaintiff paid on May 26, 2016, and the remaining amount to KRW 45,065,573, and from May 27, 2016 to the date of full payment.

B. According to the records of Gap's judgment, it is only recognized that the plaintiff made a joint contract with the content that he/she shall receive an investment return according to the agreed profit dividend standard (the profit rate of 4% per month, and the investment period of 4% from December to April 2016) for the purchase of real estate listed in Attached Table 1 (hereinafter "real estate listed in Attached Table 1") with the defendant Eul around November 2015, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise that the plaintiff lent KRW 50,000,000 to the defendant Eul. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is without merit.

2. Claim against Defendant C

(a)the reasons for the claim are as shown in Appendix 2;

(b) Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act of the judgment to recommend confession

3. Claim against Defendant D

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion on June 30, 2016: (a) concluded a sales contract between H and I Co., Ltd. to sell the first right to benefit pursuant to a security trust agreement between H and I Co., Ltd. on the second real estate in insolvent that exceeds the positive property, including the Plaintiff’s debt to the Plaintiff; and (b) donated the first right to benefit to Defendant D; (c) thus, the said sales contract constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, (d) revoked the said contract within the limit of KRW 10,00,000, and seek compensation for its restitution

B. Determination on this safety defense