1. The Defendant’s KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from September 29, 201 to March 4, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 24, 2009, the Plaintiff leased KRW 501,00,000,000,000 from D, the owner of May 5th, 200 (hereinafter “501”) of the building C, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, for the lease deposit of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 from September 7, 2009 to September 6, 2014. The Plaintiff leased the lease deposit of KRW 601,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 from September 7, 2009 to September 6, 2014.

B. The Plaintiff paid KRW 100 million each of the lease deposit to D, etc. according to each of the above contracts.

C. After that, around November 2009, D et al. entered into a lease contract with the Defendant, who is a doctor, on August 24, 2009, with the same date as each of the above contracts as August 24, 2009, under the same conditions as the above contracts.

The defendant operated the F Hospital in each of the above real estate.

On July 7, 2010, the Defendant paid KRW 100 million to G, the owner of the above building 701, and thereafter extended and operated the above hospital under the above 501, 601, and 701, and transferred it to H, the doctor of September 28, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3-1-5, 4, 5-1, 5-2, and Eul 3-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. With respect to the instant lawsuit seeking payment of KRW 200 million against the Defendant, the Defendant: (a) transferred F Hospital to H, the Defendant agreed to accept all the obligation to return the lease deposit against the Plaintiff; and (b) agreed to the Plaintiff’s acceptance; and (c) concluded a non-prosecution agreement with the original and the Defendant to have no civil or criminal filing as a matter of money any longer between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit asserts that it is unlawful.

B. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following stamp image of the Plaintiff’s name is recognized as being based on the Plaintiff’s seal, taking into account each of the descriptions indicated in 1-2, 3, 6, 7-1, and 8, 9, and 1-1, 1-2, 3, 7, and 2.