1. Paragraphs (1) and (3) of the rectification order stated in the attached Form issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on August 7, 2012 shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff.

1. Details of disposition;

A. On June 29, 201, the Plaintiff’s original construction contract was C&C Co., Ltd., and the Plaintiff was merged into T&C Holdings, Inc., Ltd. on June 29, 201, and the trade name was changed to the Plaintiff. For convenience, the Plaintiff was called the Plaintiff. On November 7, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract for the construction project with M& Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant construction project”).

In addition, a subcontract was entered into on August 25, 2008 with respect to tin works and with respect to the construction of new stones and soil works on February 20, 2007 respectively.

B. On August 7, 2012, the Defendant issued a corrective order as shown in the attached Form stating that the Plaintiff, a subcontractor, did not pay the subcontract price, etc. to the construction of new stone and scopic stone within 60 days from the acquisition of the object of the contract from the new stone construction and scopic stone construction as the subcontractor.

(hereinafter “instant corrective order”) / [The grounds for recognition] without dispute, and entry of Gap evidence No. 1

2. Whether the corrective order of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff completed the instant construction around November 7, 2009, but delayed payment of the subcontract price for the new building stones construction at least twice. Accordingly, around August 11, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a claim for direct payment of KRW 494,928,00 of the subcontract price for the unpaid construction of the new building stones and the delay damages therefor with respect to the new building stones construction. However, around this time, the payment of the subcontract price payable to the Plaintiff remains at least 1,162,374,327 won. The Plaintiff did not dispute [based on recognition], the evidence No. 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the entire pleadings, as alleged in the Defendant’s assertion, and subsequent to the direct payment of the new building stones construction claim, the Plaintiff did not pay the construction price from the new building stones.