1. The court of first instance ordered the Plaintiff to pay KRW 20,000,000 to the part of the claim for damages that became final and conclusive.

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant filed an appeal and a final appeal only against the defendant who ordered payment exceeding KRW 20,000,000 against the plaintiff. Among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment ordering the defendant to pay KRW 20,000,000 to the plaintiff shall be finalized. The scope of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be limited to the scope exceeding the finalized part (Therefore, the party's assertion that the damages for delay of KRW 20,000 has been finally determined is without merit). The plaintiff, on July 6, 2009, sold the land for factory B in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, to the defendant for KRW 3.9 billion and delivered it on August 20, 209, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which ordered the plaintiff to pay KRW 20,000,000,000,000,000,000 to the plaintiff.

On November 19, 2009, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that it was owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant submitted a preparatory document stating that the Defendant purchased the instant factory, etc. at KRW 3.9 billion on November 24, 2009, including the instant tea, in the case of the application for a provisional disposition for collection and provisional disposition between the Plaintiff and the Defendant ( Daejeon District Court Decision 2009Kahap134, Daejeon District Court Branch Branch Office).

As a dispute arises between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on whether the instant scrap was included in the subject matter of the above sales contract, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants seeking delivery of the said scrap. On June 1, 2012, the appellate court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff (Seoul High Court 201Na6968), and on October 11, 2012, the Defendant’s appeal against this was dismissed (Supreme Court Decision 2012Da51479) (Supreme Court Decision 2012Da5179).

However, in the list of Leaks of the above appellate court's judgment, 20 tons of one and 10 tons of one and 25 tons of one and 10 tons of one among the Leaks of this case, respectively.