1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) each of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 50,000,000 and each of them is the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 15, 2015, the Plaintiff, the president of the E Institute located in the fourth floor of the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan Building, drafted each agreement with the Defendants on the same content as the attached Table 1 (hereinafter referred to as “a lecture service agreement”) and the attached Table 2 (hereinafter referred to as “the first agreement”). Defendant B drafted each of the subjects of study in the E Institute in accordance with the above lecture service agreement, and Defendant C drafted each of the English subjects until the end of February 2016.

B. On January 6, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendants: (a) drafted each agreement with the same content as the agreement indicated in the attached Table 3 (hereinafter “second agreement”); and (b) obtained authentication of the deed signed by a private person under Articles 0035 and 0036, including the notary public F Office, etc., in relation to the second agreement on the same day.

C. Around August 17, 2016, Defendant C established the H Research Institute on the fourth floor of the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government G G Building. The Defendants are stronging each of the academic and English subjects until the closing date of the pleadings in the instant case at the H Research Institute.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 9 through 14, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. As the Plaintiff Defendants violated Articles 3, 5, and 6 of the Second Agreement, they are obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,000 and delay damages therefor, respectively, in accordance with Article 2(7) of the Agreement.

B. The Defendants, around January 6, 2016, recognized the fact that the Defendants received authentication of the deed signed by private persons with respect to the second agreement at the notary public F office.

However, at the time, the Plaintiff’s amendment to the part of the first agreement in favor of the Plaintiff and demanded the Defendants to sign and seal it. The Defendants knew that the second agreement was made in a manner different from that of the first agreement, and signed and sealed it in the second agreement presented by the Plaintiff.

In other words, the second agreement is null and void because it is not a document with the intention of the parties.