1. The credit transfer and takeover contract between the Defendant and B on February 6, 2015 regarding each claim listed in the separate sheet entered into on February 6, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 20, 2014, the Central Land Tribunal rendered a ruling that “each of the lands listed in the Schedule B in the attached Table B = 8,294,946,800 won, and the date of expropriation as of December 20, 2014,” upon the application of the Gyeonggi-do City Corporation and Pyeongtaek-si Urban Corporation (hereinafter “ Gyeonggi-do Urban Corporation, etc.”) which is a project implementer in connection with the development project of the C District, shall be expropriated on December 20, 2014.”

On December 18, 2014, the Gyeonggi-do Si Corporation, etc. paid the above compensation, and at the request of B, 1,655,949,510 of them were directly paid to the passbook in the name of B, and the rest of the compensation was directly paid to the creditors designated by B such as the Gyeonggi-do Gyeonggi Credit Guarantee Foundation.

B. On February 6, 2015, B entered into a contract for transfer or acquisition of each claim listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each claim of this case”), such as an objection against the above expropriation compensation or a compensation increased by administrative litigation (hereinafter “each claim of this case”) between the Defendant, one’s wife, and notified the Gyeonggi-do Market Corporation, etc. of the agreement by setting up the transfer or acquisition of each claim of this case according to the sequence listed in paragraph 3 of the separate sheet in case of individually named.

(hereinafter referred to as “transfer of claim of this case”).

B received an objection to increase in the amount of compensation for losses by filing an objection to the above acceptance ruling, and received a decision to recommend reconciliation with the content that added 252,440,150 won by filing an administrative litigation.

The Defendant received each amount of KRW 282,836,710 (including interest in arrears) increased by administrative litigation on September 18, 2015 according to the assignment of claims in this case.

On the other hand, B reported the capital gains tax on February 27, 2015 on the basis of the compensation originally received, but did not pay the reported tax amount.

The defendant imposed each transfer income tax on B as stated in the following table on the compensation paid originally and the additional compensation paid.

F. The above.