1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B is KRW 600,000,000 and 5% per annum from May 10, 2006 to August 25, 2010.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that operates a housing construction business, housing site preparation business, real estate development business, etc., and Defendant A’s school foundation (hereinafter “Defendant’s school institute”) is a school foundation that operates C High School and D High School (hereinafter “instant school”), and Defendant B is a person engaged in the construction business.

B. 1) In order to move the instant school located in Ansan-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-si, an urban center, to two parcels, the Defendant’s private teaching institute omitted the entry of the “stock company” in the name of the company, on February 200, in order to move the instant school to F and two parcels, an area other than the school.

(A) A contract for vicarious execution of authorization and permission affairs is concluded with the Board of Directors on November 27, 201 of the same year, and a building (hereinafter “school property of this case”) 73,756 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “instant school property”).

(2) On October 9, 2002, the Defendant Private Teaching Institutes concluded an agreement with H Co., Ltd. to sell the pertinent school property at KRW 50.19 billion (hereinafter “instant agreement”). Under the agreement, the Defendant Private Teaching Institutes prohibited Defendant Private Teaching Institutes from entering into a new agreement or a contract with others on the instant school property, and determined KRW 1.5 billion equivalent to 3% of the sales amount as an agreed deposit, and H paid to Defendant Private Teaching Institutes by paying the amount to Defendant Private Teaching Institutes.

3) On the date of the conclusion of the instant First Agreement, H paid KRW 1.5 billion as part of the purchase price to Defendant Private Teaching Institutes. C. The Defendant Private Teaching Institutes submitted the “resident proposal prior to I High School” at the time of Ansan. However, on September 19, 2002 and January 7, 2003, H returned the proposal on the ground that “the natural environment damage in the area subject to the relocation of the school, the increase in traffic congestion in the existing transit roads, and the location of apartment buildings in the existing school property,” etc.

2 H around March 2006, after the conclusion of the Agreement No. 1 of this case, the project is desired.