1. The Defendants’ Cheongju District Court 2015 tea 5497 against the Plaintiff is not subject to compulsory execution based on payment order.

2.

1. The Plaintiff, in fact, invested KRW 150 million to D (the husband of Defendant B and the husband of Defendant C) and was paid 2% of the profits each month, but D failed to comply with it. However, on March 12, 2013, the Plaintiff calculated the principal and profits of the said investment amount as KRW 230 million and drafted a promissory deed with the amount of credit amount.

As a security for this, D created a collateral security right of 300 million won with respect to the land for E farm in Jeju, 29570 square meters, 1273 square meters for F farm, G farm site, 4298 square meters for G farm site, and 29871 square meters for H farm site (hereinafter “instant land”).

However, D did not pay the above amount to the Plaintiff.

On August 14, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendants to purchase the instant land at 1.2 billion won.

At the time of the contract, D entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendants, as the seller, and the down payment of KRW 300 million (payment on the contract date), intermediate payment of KRW 100 million (payment on September 15, 2014), and the remainder of KRW 800 million (payment on September 15, 2014), the Plaintiff acquired the Defendants’ obligations for loans, and agreed to deduct the amount from the balance.

On the date of the contract, the Defendants prepared a receipt that 400 million won was paid in total to the Plaintiff, such as 10 million won fake receipts and 300 million won fake receipts.

Among them, 30 million won receipts were made up to 230 million won in the Notarial Deed of the Promissory Notes against the Plaintiff, with the sum of the principal and interest of 230 million won in the Notarial Deed of the said Promissory Notes to be 300 million won.

After that, the Plaintiff paid the Defendants KRW 50 million on September 6, 2014.

Although the Plaintiff changed the principal registration to the Defendants as soon as possible, the Plaintiff delayed the registration on the grounds of the capital gains tax issue.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer on the land of this case, and the expenses are borne by the Defendants.

Then, the Plaintiff on October 28, 2014 to the Defendants.