1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant):

A. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is paid KRW 220,000,000.

1. Determination as to the main claim

A. In fact, the Plaintiff is the owner of the D Hospital building located in his/her own city council.

Of the above buildings, the part as indicated in Paragraph (1) of the main text of the building (hereinafter “instant building”) has been leased from around 2002, which was owned by the former owner E.

E completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 4, 2013 due to property contribution to the Plaintiff.

D Hospital has no dental department, and there is a benefit such as securing more customers of health examinations by leasing part of the first floor of the D Hospital into dental services, which can include dental items at the time of health examinations.

On March 10, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant to lease the instant building as dental services.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The term of the contract was from March 10 to March 9, 2016, and the deposit was paid KRW 220 million (no rent) for management expenses, and KRW 600,000,000 per month for management expenses (no rent) monthly. According to the special agreement, the Plaintiff agreed to grant the right of priority to the Defendant upon the expiration of the lease term and the Defendant’s waiver of the contract to lease the other party.

After the Defendant performed artificial insemination work, on March 12, 2014, the Defendant sought dental care with the trade name “Fental”.

On October 2014, the Plaintiff was ordered to take corrective measures on the ground that “The lease of the instant building constitutes the operation of a business other than ancillary business as provided for in Articles 49 and 60 of the Medical Service Act, and the pertinent civil petition was filed.”

On October 16, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant lease agreement cannot be continued due to the above corrective order, but the Defendant rejected it.

The Plaintiff requested for the late withdrawal of the corrective order only by the expiration date of the instant lease agreement.

On January 11, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant lease contract would be renewed.

On January 18, 2016, the Plaintiff had a view to it.