1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff KRW 103,00,000 and Defendant B Co., Ltd. from July 26, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 5, 2015, the Plaintiff drafted a written agreement with Defendant D and E, along with his/her seal impression, as follows: (a) the so-called so-called “B theory” (hereinafter “B”), the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the Company B (hereinafter “B”), the D, and E’s seal impression.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement” or “instant agreement”). In respect of the criminal cases involving the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Da52402, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Na2017498, Supreme Court Decision 2014Da231736, the following agree:

(1) B, D, and E shall be jointly and severally paid KRW 150,000,000 to a person designated by the Plaintiff, on condition that it shall be paid KRW 50,000 until May 15, 2015, and KRW 50 million until June 30, 2015, and KRW 50,000,000 until June 30, 2015, and the remainder of KRW 50,000 until August 31, 2015.

② Upon receipt of KRW 100 million from B, D, and E by June 30, 2015, the Shin Yang-yang and the Plaintiff shall withdraw all of the accusations (Fraud and perjury) filed by the Shin Yang-yang-tae.

③ With respect to the case in Seoul Central District Court 2012Gahap52402, Seoul Central District Court 2013Na2017498, and Supreme Court 2014Da231736, the Plaintiff, B, D, and E shall bear the litigation costs without relation to the failure of the lawsuit, and B shall not waive both the counterclaim claim and not execute any execution against the Plaintiff.

4. If B, D, or E breaches this Agreement, it shall compensate the Plaintiff for damages.

C. However, Defendant B, D, and E paid only KRW 47,00,000 to the Plaintiff around that time, and the remainder of the agreed amount is not paid.

C. In addition, on April 22, 2015, Defendant B approved the written agreement to assume only the liability for the invested property among the liabilities of Defendant C, a beneficiary company, through a special shareholders’ meeting, which is divided. However, Defendant B did not implement the creditor protection procedure under Article 527-5 of the Commercial Act, such as sending an individual peremptory notice to the Plaintiff or Shinyang.