1. The Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendants under the business transfer agreement dated June 30, 2016 and the cancellation of the said business transfer agreement.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a business transfer agreement with the Defendants (hereinafter “instant business transfer agreement”) under which the Plaintiff is obligated to receive all of the Defendants’ business, and the details thereof are as follows.

1) As of the date of business transfer, the business partner in transactions with the Defendants is acquiring by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff takes over all of the obligations arising prior to the date of business transfer (No. 1-2, No. 1-2, No. 2-1, and each acceptance agreement, No. 2, and No. 2 of each acceptance agreement, are the same, and are marked in

(2) As of June 30, 2016, the Defendants are liable for the damages incurred by the Defendants to the Plaintiff, excluding the liabilities that the Defendants submitted to the Plaintiff and the current purchase obligations.

(Article 3(2)3) The obligation arising from the request of the representative director of the defendant corporation shall be borne by the plaintiff only when it is confirmed that the source of use was used by the defendant corporation, and where the source of use is uncertain, the plaintiff does not bear the obligation for the non-founded funds, recoverys after the inflow of personal funds, etc. (Article 3(4)4). The payment for the transfer of business is based on the assumption of the obligation borne by the defendants by the plaintiff, and is substituted for the payment for the transfer of business.

(Article 6)

B. On October 24, 2016, the Plaintiff sent D, the representative director of the Defendants’ Bank Account, KRW 60,000,000 on April 8, 2016, and KRW 60,000,000 on the same day, KRW 9,900,000 on June 16, 2016, KRW 9,865,000 on June 28, 2016, KRW 865,000 on June 28, 2016, KRW 80,000 on June 28, 2016, and KRW 270,00,000 on June 29, 2016, and KRW 489,765,000 on a check was remitted or withdrawn in cash as a representative director’s account, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot request the Defendant to accept the amount of the check as debt upon presentation of the notice.

C. On November 1, 2016, D, the representative director of the Defendants, is the Plaintiff’s representative director E, and the Plaintiff’s side is the Defendants.