1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

(a) refund each section listed in the Schedule I;

(b) above;

1. Determination as to the main claim

A. Determination 1 on the grounds of the claim is based on the Plaintiff’s judgment on the grounds of the claim(s) around June 2, 2008, the New Dong-dong and the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “New Dong-dong”) (hereinafter “New Dong-dong”)

(2) After purchasing each of the departments listed in the separate sheet No. 1 from the Plaintiff and around 2008, the fact that each of the above departments was leased to the Defendant, who was an employee of the Newdong and Dong at the time, without setting the time for return, is not disputed between the parties or recognized by considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant has a duty to return the above section to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant asserted that the Defendant returned the three parts of the attached sheet No. 1 which the Defendant borrowed from the Plaintiff, among each of the departments listed in the annexed sheet No. 1, the Defendant claimed that: (a) while subparagraph 4-4 of the attached Table No. 4 was the Plaintiff’s representative of the Plaintiff, who acquired the annexed list No. 1 and the Defendant’s each of the annexed list No. 1, the Defendant filed a complaint against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant case”).

(B) The Defendant asserts that the Defendant lent to the Plaintiff each section of the attached Form 2 in the market price of KRW 73,821,00 between May 208 and December 8, 2010, respectively, the Defendant’s claim for return against the Plaintiff as set forth in the attached Table 2 against the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion solely based on the above evidence Nos. 4-4 of the evidence Nos. 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion of set-off is without merit.