1. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: 5% per annum from January 26, 2017 to September 28, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

A. As to the instant agreement, a share allocation agreement with the intent to make an investment (hereinafter “instant agreement”) was concluded, and the key contents relevant to the instant agreement are as follows.

Article 2 (Purpose) The purpose of this Agreement is to contribute to the investment of part of the cost of the business in the instant project undertaken by Gap (Defendant Company) and to provide basic rights and obligations with Gap and Eul, and to facilitate successful projects in good faith.

Article 3 (Business Sharing and Cooperation Obligation) A and B shall share and cooperate as follows in order to achieve the objectives of the instant project:

(1) Obligations A: In principle, A shall promote the instant project and proceed with it successfully.

(2) Obligations of subparagraph B: He/she shall ensure that Party A invests in part of the progress of the project in order to ensure smooth progress of the project.

(Daily 120 million won)* Initial Investment (daily gold 40 million won), 30 million won in June 201, and 20 million won in consultation with each other.

Article 4 (Distribution of Shares) A shall allocate to B shares equivalent to 10 percent of the net operating profit.

B. On December 2, 2013, the Defendant Company was ordered to be dissolved pursuant to Article 520-2(1) of the Commercial Act, and the registration of dissolution was completed on the fifth day of the same month, and on December 2, 2016, the liquidation was completed pursuant to Article 520-2(4) of the Commercial Act, and the registration of the completion was completed on the fifth day of the same month.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant company

A. The fact that the performance of the obligation to cancel the instant arrangement is impossible is not simply absolute and physical impossibility, but also where the obligee cannot expect the realization of the obligor’s performance in light of the empirical rules or transaction concept in the social life.

Supreme Court Decision 201.24.01