1. On the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant),

A. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s KRW 62,500,000 and its amount are from March 30, 2018.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall also be deemed to have been filed.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 29, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a previous sales contract between the original Defendant (hereinafter “instant forest”) with a view to installing solar power infrastructure, and on November 29, 2017, 32,792§³ of D forest land owned by the Defendant B (hereinafter “instant forest”).

Defendant C (Defendant B’s spouse) and Defendant C

2) The instant return shall be 4,106.5 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant return”) in Namwon-si, Namwon-si.

(2) The Defendants are entitled to purchase KRW 350 million in total from the Defendants (hereinafter “previous sales contract”).

(2) At the time of the conclusion of the above previous sales contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendants prepared the so-called “the so-called “the” contract with the purchase price of KRW 120 million in terms of the sales contract in order to have the actual value of the forest of this case reduced or exempted capital gains tax. On the other hand, the actual value of the answer of this case is KRW 50 million in terms of the sales contract, or KRW 230 million in terms of the sales contract, and KRW 350 million in total by preparing the so-called “the business contract” in terms of the sales contract and KRW 230 million in terms of the sales contract.

3) After the conclusion of the previous sales contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 35 million to Defendant B’s bank account as down payment, and KRW 50 million as the intermediate payment on December 14, 2017, respectively. (B) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of the Defendants’ obligation due to the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of obligation (i) the Plaintiff did not pay the Defendant C an intermediate payment of KRW 45 million until December 14, 2017, which is the intermediate payment payment payment date stipulated in the previous sales contract. The Defendants asserted that, on January 16, 2018, the Defendant terminated the previous sales contract on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not pay the intermediate payment on time to the date of the payment of the intermediate payment, and that there was no obligation to confirm the ownership transfer registration of the Plaintiff under the previous sales contract with respect to the instant woodland and the answer.