1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is out of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Basic facts

A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is jointly owned by the Plaintiff Company and eight persons, including Defendant B.

(The Plaintiff Company’s shares are 536.69/829.38, Defendant B’s shares are 102.83/829.38).

Co-owners of the instant real estate have a separate ownership relationship in which the said real estate is separated into several stores and used independently as stated in the attached Form.

C. On February 12, 2003, the Plaintiff Company and Defendant B drafted a written consent stating that “Defendant B shall exchange and use the portion owned by the Plaintiff Company 19 and five parts owned by the Plaintiff Company 5, and the Plaintiff Company 13 parts owned by the Defendant Company 13” (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and did not set the time limit for use.

Since then, Defendant C (Defendant B’s father) has established and operated a golf practice range in the part owned by Defendant B and 19 parts.

Plaintiff

Around September 16, 2008, the company leased the pertinent real estate to E by aggregating the owned parts and the 13 parts. E operated a health club in the leased part, while establishing and operating a driving range additionally from November 21, 2009.

The defendant's side interferes with his own business and requested the plaintiff company to interview E, but the plaintiff company did not comply with it.

The defendant's side filed a civil petition with the Gangnam-gu Office where E's golf practice range business is illegal, and the Gangnam-gu Office filed a civil petition against E on the ground that he/she carried out the sports facility business without filing a corrective order and filing a report to co-owners after marking the building in violation of the real estate in this case.

In this process, the relationship between the plaintiff company and the defendant has significantly deteriorated.

E. At the time of the instant agreement on April 13, 2009, D, who was the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, resigned and F, was appointed as the representative director.

F. From January 21, 2011, Plaintiff Company demanded the Defendant to return the 19th portion from January 21, 201, and also the instant complaint.