1. Of the part relating to the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) who falls under the following order to pay.

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

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is that of the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following specifications:

On the 3rd side, “Defendant” in the 4rd side is called “Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant”).

Each “designatedr” of not more than 7 pages 2 shall be dismissed as “Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff”.

From the last 7th to the 8th 1st eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e.g.

3) On July 17, 2014, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for payment of KRW 1 billion, which is part of KRW 2,768,384,507, on the ground that, pursuant to the instant settlement agreement due to the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff had an obligation to transfer ownership of the remaining part of the instant building except the fifth floor to the Defendant, such as the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his/her obligation to cooperate with loans, and accordingly, the Defendant brought a claim against the Plaintiff for payment of KRW 1 billion, which is part of the damages incurred.

On May 27, 2015, the above court rendered that the Plaintiff’s obligation to transfer ownership was impossible due to a cause attributable to the Plaintiff, and partly accepted the Plaintiff’s claim.

On June 9, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed from Busan High Court Decision 2015Na52947, and on June 9, 2016, the Plaintiff’s appeal was accepted and the Defendant’s claim was dismissed on the ground that the Plaintiff’s obligation under the instant settlement agreement was not fulfilled due to the Defendant’s cause.

Therefore, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2016Da236872, but the above judgment became final and conclusive as it was dismissed on September 28, 2016.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in this court, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, 15, 16, 46 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 3.