1. As to KRW 1,192,533,561 among the Plaintiff and KRW 1,00,000,000,000, Defendant D, from July 10, 2014 to December 19, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 10, 207, between Defendant B, D, and E (hereinafter “Defendant B, etc.”) and F, an exchange contract was concluded between each land listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) and each land listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 of the attached Table No. 3 owned by Defendant B and D (hereinafter “each land listed in paragraphs (3) of the attached Table No. 2 and paragraph (3) of the attached Table No. 2 of the attached Table No. 2 and paragraph (3) of the attached Table No. 3 (hereinafter “instant land No. 2”).

B. On November 19, 2007, after the conclusion of the instant exchange contract, the list No. 1 of the F-owned list

(a).

As to each land set forth in the paragraph, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with the debtor F, D, the plaintiff, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 500 million has been completed, and the attached Table 1-B of F owned on the same day.

On the same day, the provisional registration of the right to claim the transfer of ownership was completed for Defendant B, D, and the Plaintiff each 1/3 shares in respect of the land indicated in the paragraph, and for the land owned by Defendant B, etc., the mortgage registration was completed for the debtor as to the land owned by Defendant B, D, collateral security holder, F, and maximum debt amount of KRW 2 billion.

C. On November 1, 2011, a written confirmation was prepared between the Plaintiff and the Defendants that “The instant land No. 2 is real estate subject to exchange with F with the owner of the instant land No. 1 and that joint investors also have the right to 1/3 (1/3 of investment amount) an investment share irrespective of the name of registration (hereinafter “instant confirmation”).

On April 5, 2011, each of the following content was drawn up between the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and D (hereinafter “each of the instant implementation notes”).

The nominal owner of each of the above orders is not the plaintiff but the plaintiff's submitted G, but the defendants also acknowledged that each of the above orders was made between the plaintiff, defendant B and D.