1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s obligations specified in attached Form 1 against the Defendant do not exist.

2. The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) intended to promote the Plaintiff’s transaction of acquiring management rights through capital increase with consideration and the sale of old shares (hereinafter “instant transaction”); and (b) selected Durrote Accounting Firm (hereinafter “Advisory”) as a M&A adviser, and conducted a bid.

B. On November 16, 2015, the Defendant constituted a consortium with two companies and two companies outside of the Jinjin Construction Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Kinjin Construction”), and participated in the tendering procedure of the instant case as a consortium representative. The Defendant was selected as a priority bidder on the part of November 16, 2015.

C. On November 19, 2015, the Defendant, as the representative of the consortium, deposited the performance guarantee amount of KRW 2 billion into the national bank account as indicated in the Disposition No. 2 in the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “instant performance guarantee”). Of the said performance guarantee, the Defendant paid KRW 1.5 billion to Jinjin Construction, and the remainder of KRW 500 million, respectively. In order to secure the return of the said performance guarantee, the Plaintiff created a pledge on the deposit claim of KRW 2 billion as stated in the Attached Table No. 2.

On December 2015, Jinjin Construction, which is the major investor of the Defendant consortium, withdrawn from the Defendant consortium, and accordingly, the Defendant consortium replaced the consortium members and requested the adjustment of the bid amount by preparing a new acquisition plan.

However, on January 21, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the purport that “Defendant consortium is unable to enter into this contract due to Defendant consortium’s request for a unilateral change in the contents of the bid proposal, etc., and the Plaintiff withdraws the status of Defendant consortium’s priority negotiation partner and forfeits the performance bond.”

2. 17. The Defendant requested the Defendant to proceed with the procedure of cancelling the pledge on the instant deposit claim.

E. Upon the occurrence of the first bidding, the Plaintiff followed the bidding procedure again on February 2016.