1. The case involving the delivery of a building by the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is the Suwon District Court 2012Na36017.

The main lawsuit and counterclaim are also finite.

1. Basic facts

A. As to the case of Suwon District Court 2012Na36019 on April 29, 2013 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the conciliation protocol was prepared following the conclusion of the conciliation agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that “1. The Defendant delivers to the Plaintiff a part of the cross-story storage in Gwangju City C, D, and E. The Plaintiff shall pay KRW 2.5 million to the Defendant. The Plaintiff, on March 2, 201, paid KRW 2.5 million to the Defendant.”

B. The Plaintiff deposited KRW 2.5 million based on Article 2(2) of the instant conciliation clause.

(No. 196, 2013, hereinafter referred to as “instant deposit”). C.

On December 18, 2009 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, a notary public of December 18, 2009, as the mother law firm No. 1079, "No. notarial deeds of money loan contract" (hereinafter referred to as "notarial deeds of this case").

(C) The Plaintiff: (a) seized and collected the Defendant’s right to claim the return of the instant deposit based on the instant authentic deed; and (b) thereafter, in the auction procedure (this court F), the auction court distributed KRW 252,766, and KRW 238,786 to G, who is a person holding a provisional attachment right, in the first order of the amount to be actually distributed as of September 26, 2013, among KRW 2,504,552, the amount to be actually distributed as of September 26, 2013, KRW 252,766, and KRW 238,786 to the Plaintiff by the person holding the right to claim the return. [

2. The assertion;

A. The Plaintiff deposited the instant case, thereby repaying all obligations under the instant conciliation protocol.

Therefore, compulsory execution under the instant protocol should be denied.

B. The notarial deed of this case was prepared by the plaintiff to lend KRW 31 million to the defendant on the day following the preparation of the above notarial deed, and since the plaintiff did not actually lend the above money, the above notarial deed is null and void.

Therefore, based on the notarial deed of this case, the Plaintiff’s receipt of the deposit money as dividend in the dividend procedure is accepted without any legal ground.

If so, the plaintiff is in accordance with the mediation protocol of this case.