1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff; (b) KRW 5% per annum from February 2, 2018 to March 6, 2019; and (c) from the following day.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 29, 2009, the Plaintiff and C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) drafted a lease agreement with C, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000 from Osan-si E (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by C, and from June 29, 201, to June 29, 201.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On August 8, 2007, the Plaintiff filed a move-in report with the place of residence of the instant apartment, and had continued to reside in the said apartment since that time.

C. Meanwhile, on December 24, 2013, F, a creditor of C, applied for voluntary auction of the instant apartment on December 24, 2013 to Suwon District Court G, and the Defendant purchased the said apartment in the auction procedure and acquired ownership on November 27, 2014.

After that, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as Suwon District Court 2015dan104707, and the reason for the claim is that the plaintiff is not the lessee of the apartment of this case, and the defendant is obligated to deliver the apartment of this case and pay unjust enrichment by the time of delivery.

On June 15, 2016, the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the entire provisional execution department to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall deliver the instant apartment to the Defendant, and shall pay unjust enrichment by the time of delivery”.

E. After the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered, the Plaintiff delivered the instant apartment to the Defendant on July 28, 2016, and moved to another place.

F. On April 11, 2017, the appellate court rendered a judgment that “the first instance judgment is revoked, and all of the claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed,” on the grounds that the Plaintiff is a legitimate lessee and the Plaintiff may oppose the Defendant under the instant lease agreement.”

The above judgment became final and conclusive because the defendant did not appeal against the above judgment.

The lawsuit mentioned in paragraph (d) above is for convenience.