1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's ground for claim

A. The Defendant filed with the Seoul Central District Court a lawsuit against B and C seeking delivery of 1,438.79m2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) of the first floor of the building underground in Seocho-gu Seoul Central District Court (the lower court 2010No441526).

On March 11, 2011, the above court rendered a judgment to deliver the instant real estate to the Defendant.

B and C appealed against the above judgment.

B. The appellate court referred the above case to the conciliation (Seoul Central District Court 201Na19033) (the same court). On June 21, 2011, the appellate court calculated the overdue rent, management fee, overdue interest, and public charges until July 12, 2011, and subsequently withdraws the provisional attachment of KRW 40 million against B and C for this purpose.

2. The defendant shall immediately receive the money set forth in the above paragraph (1) and enter into a lease agreement with the plaintiff on the real estate of this case, and the contract terms shall be the same as that with B and C

3. If B and C fail to perform the commitments under the above paragraph (1), the appeal of this case shall be withdrawn.

4. If the defendant fails to perform the agreement under the above Paragraph 2, the defendant shall withdraw the lawsuit of this case.

C. On October 1, 2010, the Defendant received a provisional order against B and C to prohibit the possession or transfer of the instant real estate (Seoul Central District Court 2010Kahap2712). B transferred the possession of the instant real estate to E on February 7, 2011. The Defendant applied for the grant of the execution clause against E for the delivery of the real estate in accordance with the above judgment and the provisional order against the prohibition against the transfer of the possession of the real estate, but the execution court became null and void due to the completion of conciliation in the above appellate court.

D. On February 23, 2012, the Defendant rejected the request on the ground that the Seoul Central District Court would correct the provision of the above conciliation protocol (the above court 2012Kala1117). The above court made a request for correction on March 9, 2012.