1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) on August 25, 2017, with respect to KRW 150 million and KRW 100 million among the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. The fact of recognition: (a) On August 9, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a real estate lease agreement (hereinafter “the instant agreement”) with the Defendant with respect to the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment E (hereinafter “instant apartment”) located in Gangnam-gu and D, with a deposit of KRW 480 million,000 on the day the down payment is KRW 50 million; (b) on August 25, 2017, an intermediate payment of KRW 50 million; and (c) on November 13, 2017, paid the remainder of KRW 380,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant agreement”); and (d) paid the Defendant the down payment and the intermediate payment as stipulated in the agreement.

② At the time of the instant apartment contract, F Co., Ltd.’s collateral security (the maximum claim amount of KRW 444 million) was established on the instant apartment. However, according to the instant special agreement, the said collateral security obligation was stipulated to be repaid in full at the time of payment of the remainder of the instant contract.

③ The Defendant’s spouse Nonparty G was residing in the apartment of this case, and the Defendant was a divorce lawsuit from March 2017, and the Defendant’s agent and the Defendant’s agent are the same.

On August 30, 2017, after the conclusion of the instant contract and five days later, provisional attachment of KRW 150,000 was executed with respect to the instant apartment on August 30, 2017, where the creditor’s right to claim division of property was the preserved right.

④ On October 18, 2017, the Plaintiff came to know of G’s execution of provisional seizure only after receiving a call from G that “I would move to the Plaintiff according to the date of the Plaintiff’s director, but will apply for an auction if a divorce judgment takes place.” On October 6, 2017, the Plaintiff sought the answer that, after requesting an enterprise bank’s loan to pay the balance of the instant contract, it is difficult to implement the loan due to G’s provisional seizure, it was difficult to implement the loan due to G’s provisional seizure. On several occasions, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to resolve the provisional seizure issue, but the Defendant did not comply with the request, through the office of the licensed real estate agent that arranged the instant contract, and around November 9, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the rescission through the office of the licensed real estate agent that arranged the instant contract, and on December 6, 2017, the claimed amount KRW 100 million.