Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation (Law Firm Jeongjin, Attorneys Shin Dong-seok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm KEL, Attorneys Park Jae-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

February 7, 2018

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Gahap517186 Decided February 16, 2016

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

A. Between Nonparty 1 and the Defendant:

1) Of the real estate listed in Appendix 1. dated June 9, 2011, 1/2 shares;

2) Attached 2. Matters concerning each amount of gift concluded on the date of each gift listed in Nos. 15 through 20, and 22 in the list of donations

Each gift contract shall be revoked.

B. The defendant, the defendant

1) The Seoul Western District Court shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration made on June 10, 201 in accordance with No. 32296 of the receipt on June 10, 201 with respect to the portion of 1/2 of the real estate listed in Attachment 1. to Nonparty 1;

2) The Plaintiff shall pay to the Plaintiff 85,920,156 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day this judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment.

C. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 50% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The contract for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 3296 of June 10, 201 between Nonparty 1 and the Defendant on June 9, 201, and the amount of each gift concluded on the date of each donation listed in the attached Table 2 of Attached Table 1, which was concluded on June 9, 201, and on the date of each donation listed in the attached Table 2 of Attached Table 2, shall be revoked. The Defendant shall pay to Nonparty 1 the amount calculated by applying the procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on June 10, 201 with respect to the portion of 1/2 of the real estate listed in Attached Table 1 to the Plaintiff at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the date the judgment of this case was finalized to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The rejection of the lawsuit in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. Each contract on each donation concluded on the date of each donation listed in [Attachment 2] No. 15 through 20, and No. 22 in the list of donations shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 85,920,156 won and 5% interest per annum from the day after the date of the final judgment of this case to the day of complete payment.

B. Defendant

The part against the defendant in the first instance judgment shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

1. Scope of the trial;

In the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the cancellation of fraudulent act and the claim for restitution with respect to each gift contract listed in the separate sheet No. 1 through No. 33 as to the portion of the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 2. The court of first instance dismissed the part of each gift contract listed in the separate sheet No. 15 through No. 20, and No. 22 of the separate sheet No. 2 of the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 1, and cited only the portion of the separate sheet No. 5 through No. 11 of the separate sheet No. 2 of the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 1, and dismissed the remainder. The Plaintiff appealed against the above additional portion only, and the Defendant appealed against the part against the Defendant among the judgment of first instance. Since the portion of the separate sheet No. 1 through No. 4, 12 through 14, 21, 23 through 33 of the separate sheet No. 2, this court’s judgment was finalized as it is.

2. Facts of recognition;

The court's reasoning in this part is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to the following changes, and therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ 4. 8-9 of the first instance judgment, “Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 appealed to the said judgment, and are pending in the appellate trial (Seoul High Court 2015Na2049116).” The Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 appealed to the said judgment, but the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2015Na2049116) sentenced the dismissal of Nonparty 1’s appeal on September 14, 2017, and Nonparty 1 appealed to the Supreme Court (Supreme Court 2017Da276488).”

3. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The parties' assertion

1) Summary of the defendant's assertion

The plaintiff added the part concerning the revocation of the fraudulent act and the part concerning the claim for restitution as to the addition through the amendment of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim on December 8, 2014, but it is reasonable to understand that the plaintiff already deposited an amount exceeding one million won to the defendant as a donation while filing the lawsuit in this case. Thus, the plaintiff knew that the additional part was recognized as a donation and constitutes a fraudulent act around November 4, 2013, which was around the time when the plaintiff received all the financial transaction information about the non-party 1 and the defendant, and therefore, it should be dismissed because it is obvious that the lawsuit about the additional part was filed one year after the date when the plaintiff became aware of the fraudulent act.

2) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

If a corporation exercises the right of revocation, the exclusion period falls under the date when the representative of the corporation becomes aware of the cause of revocation, and thus, the exclusion period is the starting point only when the representative of the plaintiff knew of the act of remittance of additional amount to the defendant against the non-party 1. However, in this case, on December 16, 2013, the president of the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, the representative of the plaintiff, issued a notice that the act of remittance of additional amount to the bankruptcy trustee of the bankrupt bank, on December 16, 2013, constitutes a fraudulent act after reviewing by the bankruptcy foundation, and notified that the act of remittance constitutes a fraudulent act. Thus, the additional amount raised within one year was not subject to the exclusion period.

(b) Relevant legal principles;

1) In the exercise of the obligee’s right of revocation, the “date when the obligee becomes aware of the cause for revocation” means the date when the obligee became aware of the requirement for the obligee’s right of revocation, namely, the date when the obligee becomes aware of the fact that the obligor committed a fraudulent act while knowing that the obligee would prejudice the obligee. If the obligee became aware of the cause for revocation, it is insufficient to say that the obligor merely knew of the fact that the obligee conducted a disposal of the property, and it is necessary to know that the obligor was aware of the existence of a specific fraudulent act and that the obligor was aware of the intent to harm the obligor, and it cannot be presumed that the obligee was aware of the objective fact of the fraud. Meanwhile, the burden of proof regarding the lapse of the limitation period lies in the other party to the obligee’s revocation lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da23857, Sep. 24, 2002; 207Da63102, Mar. 26, 2009).

2) In cases of remitting money to another person’s deposit account by transferring money, etc., the remittance may be based on various legal causes. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the remittance is a fraudulent act causing actual decrease in the total property of the remitter with no specific legal cause (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da22725, Jan. 28, 2016).

3) In determining the “date when a corporation becomes aware of the cause for revocation”, which is the starting point of the exclusion period in cases where a corporation exercises its right of revocation, the “date when it becomes aware of the cause for revocation” refers to the date when the representative becomes aware of such cause (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da50435, Jan. 15, 2015).

C. Determination

The facts acknowledged earlier. According to Gap evidence Nos. 10 and 11 and the results of the order to submit financial transaction information on modern securities, the plaintiff provided the defendant-related financial transaction information from modern securities on October 15, 2012. The bank of this case 1) provided the financial transaction information from modern securities to non-party 1, and the defendant-related financial transaction information on November 4, 2013. The president of the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation sent an official statement to the defendant on November 6, 2012, stating that the part concerning the transfer of the real estate contract of this case constitutes fraudulent act, including the additional statement on non-party 1 and the additional statement on non-party 2, 201 and the additional statement on non-party 2, 201, which included the aforementioned additional statement on non-party 1's cancellation of the financial transaction information of this case to his agent on November 21, 2012, which included the aforementioned additional statement on non-party 2, 2013.

However, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it cannot be presumed that the Plaintiff was aware that all of the aforementioned transfers were fraudulent acts, and furthermore, Nonparty 1, the debtor, was aware of the intent to commit a fraudulent act. Rather, according to the following circumstances, the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation did not merely inquire about the financial transaction information before implementing the claim preservation measures, but it did not specify the details of the financial transaction before formulating the investigation plan, and prepared a report. 20 years after preparing the report, the Plaintiff did not appear to have been aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that there was no possibility that the Plaintiff would have been subject to a fraudulent act. Considering the fact that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff had been subject to a fraudulent act on November 23, 2011 through 25, and that there was no other evidence suggesting that the Plaintiff would have been subject to a fraudulent act, including the fact that the Plaintiff was not aware of the fact that the Plaintiff had been subject to a fraudulent act.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was aware that the additional part was a fraudulent act and that there was an intention of deception against Nonparty 1 only on December 16, 2013. As such, the starting point of the exclusion period is around December 16, 2013. However, insofar as there was an obvious change in the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim on December 8, 2014, the lawsuit for revocation of the fraudulent act in the additional part is lawful by complying with the exclusion period. The Defendant’s prior defense on the merits is without merit.

4. Judgment on the merits

Although the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits has no merit, this case has been tried to the extent that the judgment on the merits can be rendered, pursuant to the proviso of Article 418 of the Civil Procedure Act, this court decided to make a judgment on the merits of this case by itself pursuant to the proviso of Article 418 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the respective donations contract parts No. 5 or No. 11 of the table No. 2

A. Formation of preserved claims

1) In principle, it is required that a claim protected by the obligee’s right of revocation has arisen prior to the commission of an act that can be viewed as a fraudulent act. However, there is a high probability that at the time of a fraudulent act, there has already been a legal relationship that serves as the basis of the establishment of a claim, and that the claim has been established in the near future, and in the near future, where a claim has been created by realizing such probability in the near future, such claim may also become a preserved claim of the obligee’

2) According to the facts established above, the non-party 1 committed an illegal act, such as participating in illegal loans, around December 2010, which is the transfer of each gift to the defendant, and there was a legal relationship which forms the basis of the establishment of the claim. The above loan was highly probable to incur losses because it exceeded the lending limit and is likely to become non-performing loans due to bad debts. In fact, the damages incurred by the officers including the non-party 1 caused the impossibility of collecting the above loan claims due to overdue debts, etc., and the damages liability against the bank of this case was realized. Thus, even if each disposal act against the defendant was prior to the criminal trial against the non-party 1 and the confirmation of the plaintiff's civil lawsuit against the non-party 1, the plaintiff's claim for damages against the non-party 1 may be the preserved claim (the same as in the appellate court of the related case (Seoul High Court 2015Na2049116). It is recognized that the non-party 1 paid damages to the bank of this case as KRW 5000,0000.

B. Whether the fraudulent act was established

1) The Defendant received benefits from the workplace where Nonparty 1 had been employed for that period, and transferred some of the remaining amounts of insurance premiums, credit card bills, etc. from the above money to the passbook in the name of the Defendant to use them for living expenses, etc. The Defendant asserted that each remittance amount corresponding to the donation list on Attached 2 of the instant case was remitted to the account of living expenses for running a married couple’s community, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as donation.

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1-1, the fact that during 2008 that Non-party 1 has remitted the amount between KRW 5 million and KRW 10 million out of the salaries to the defendant on the 22th day to 26th day of each month is recognized.

Defendants 208-20, 208-1, 208-1, 208-1, 208-2, 208-1, 208-1, 208-2, 208-2, 208-2, 208-2, 200, 308-1, 208-1, 208-2, 200, 208-217, 2008-21, 707, 608-2, 207, 608-1, 207, 608-2, 207, 208-1, 605, 60-2, 207, 608-2, 605, 60-2, 607, 60-21, 507, 2005-2, 7208-30-1, 305.

However, in the case of [Attachment 2] Nos. 5 or 11 of the list of donations, the amount of KRW 63 million was remitted between April 22, 2011 and May 3, 2011. This is difficult to view that a large amount of money was remitted within a short period different from the remittance to the above living expenses, and thus, the remittance was made into a living expense. Unlike the above, the Defendant’s counter-proof against the user of the above remittance amount was 4). In addition, even in the case of the additional portion, the additional portion constitutes a large amount of money remittance of KRW 85,920,156 on seven occasions between July 15, 201 and July 27, 201, which is 85,920,000 won from July 22, 2011 to May 3, 2011, in view of the fact that there was no other necessary circumstance, it cannot be deemed that the above donation was remitted as a non-party 12 or 515.

2) Meanwhile, in order for an obligor to become a fraudulent act, it refers to a juristic act for the purpose of property right with the knowledge that it harms the obligee. Since the obligor’s passive property should go in excess of the obligor’s positive property or exceeds the obligor’s debts, it shall be considered as to the details of the gift of this case and each of the gift of this case [in principle, unless there are special circumstances that the obligor continued to dispose of several properties, it shall not be considered as one act, and it shall be determined as to whether the series of acts may cause insolvency as a whole. However, if there are special circumstances that regard the series of acts as one act, it shall be determined as to whether it exceeds the obligor’s identity, the time and closeness of each property act, the relationship between the obligor and the other party, the motive or opportunity of the act, etc., and it shall be determined as to whether the other party to the gift of this case’s real property from 200 to 315.27. 17. 27. 15. 2010).

A) The current status of Nonparty 1’s property share between April 22, 2011 and May 3, 201

Attached 2. The details of Nonparty 1’s active and passive property between April 22, 201 and May 3, 201, concluded each gift contract under Articles 5 through 11 of the List of Donations Nos. 5 through 11, are as follows:

본문내 포함된 표 재산목록 가액(단위:원) 비고 적극재산 1 충남 서천군 ◇◇면 ☆☆리 임야 3,443,480 (=3,100원×5,554㎡㎡1/5) 을 제19호증 2 이 사건 부동산 1/2지분 278,500,000 다툼 없음 3 ○○○○아파트 매매대금채권 463,000,000 을 제3, 4호증 (=총 매매대금 515,000,000원- 2011. 4. 20. 지급받은 계약금 52,000,000원) 4 NH농협생명보험주식회사 보험계약채권 16,242,321 을 제17호증의 1, 2 2011. 3. 31.자 기준 해지환급금은 16,172,989원이나, 피고가 주장하는 대로 2011. 4. 30.자 해지환급금인 16,242,321원으로 가액을 산정하였다. 5 NH농협 예금계좌 잔고 58,755,480(주7) 을 제2호증 (2011. 4. 22. 기준) 6 현대증권 증권계좌 잔고 102,160,672(주8) 을 제18호증의 1 2011. 3. 31.자 기준 잔고 합계 922,101,953 소극재산 1 이 사건 피보전채권 513,000,000 갑 제12호증 2 이 사건 부동산에 설정된 근저당채무액 100,000,000 2018. 1. 11.자 농협은행의 사실조회회신결과 3 ○○○○아파트 근저당채무액 110,000,000 2016. 9. 29., 2018. 1. 25.자 하나은행의 금융거래정보회신결과. 2011. 5. 11. 실제근저당채무가 모두 상환되었다. 합계 723,000,000

Note 7) 58,755,480

Note 8) 102,160,672

According to this, it is clear that active property exceeds a passive property, and it cannot be deemed that the donation of KRW 63,00,000 to the defendant during the above period led to the reduction of the total property and the shortage of joint security of claims has occurred. Therefore, each donation falling under [Attachment 2] Nos. 5 through 11 of the table of donations No. 2. 5 through 11 cannot be deemed as a fraudulent act that causes or deepens the excess of obligations.

B) The current status of Nonparty 1’s property on June 9, 2011

The current status of the property of Nonparty 1 at the time of June 9, 201, upon which the donation contract regarding the instant real estate was concluded, is as shown in the attached Table 3>

본문내 포함된 표 재산목록 가액(단위:원) 비고 적극재산 1 충남 서천군 ◇◇면 ☆☆리 임야 3,443,480 (=3,100원×5,554㎡㎡1/5) 을 제19호증 2 이 사건 부동산 1/2지분 278,500,000 다툼 없음 3 ○○○○아파트 매매대금채권 363,000,000 을 제2, 3, 4호증 (=총 매매대금 515,000,000원- 2011. 4. 20. 지급받은 계약금 52,000,000원 - 2011. 5. 9. 수령한 중도금 100,000,000원) 4 NH농협생명보험주식회사 보험계약채권 16,346,384(주9) 을 제21호증의1 2011. 5. 31. 기준 해지환급금 5 NH농협 예금계좌 잔고 3,203,029 을 제2호증 (2011. 6. 9. 기준) 6 현대증권 증권계좌 잔고 93,659,749(주10) 을 제22호증의1 2011. 5. 31. 기준 잔고 합계 758,152,642 소극재산 1 이 사건 피보전채권 513,000,000 갑 제12호증 2 이 사건 부동산에 설정된 근저당채무액 100,000,000 2018. 1. 11.자 농협은행 사실조회회신결과 합계 623,000,000

Note 9) 16,346,384

Note 10) 93,659,749

According to this, the value of active property is approximately KRW 760 million, and the sum of the small property is KRW 623,00,000,000, and Nonparty 1 donated the instant real property to the Defendant. As such, such donation led to a situation where the small property exceeds the obligation exceeding the positive property. Accordingly, the real estate donation contract in attached Form 1 of this case, which caused the excess of obligation, constitutes a fraudulent act.

C) The current status of Nonparty 1’s property between July 15, 201 and July 27, 201

Attached 2. The details of Nonparty 1’s active and small property during the period from July 15, 201 to July 27, 201, which was concluded by the gift contract under Articles 15 to 20, and 22 of the List of Donations No. 15 to 20, are as follows:

본문내 포함된 표 재산목록 가액(단위:원) 비고 적극재산 1 충남 서천군 ◇◇면 ☆☆리 임야 3,443,480 (=3,100원×5,554㎡㎡1/5) 을 제19호증 2 ○○○○아파트 매매대금채권 363,000,000 을 제2, 3, 4호증 (=총 매매대금 515,000,000원- 2011. 4. 20. 지급받은 계약금 52,000,000원 - 2011. 5. 9. 수령한 중도금 100,000,000원) 3 NH농협생명보험주식회사 보험계약채권 16,500,101(주11) 을 제21호증의 2 2011. 6. 30.자 해지환급금 4 NH농협 예금계좌 잔고 2,943,444 을 제2호증 (2011. 7. 15. 기준) 5 현대증권 증권계좌 잔고 93,146,273 을 제22호증의 2 2011. 6. 30.자 잔고 합계 479,033,298 소극재산 1 이 사건 피보전채권 513,000,000 갑 제12호증 2 이 사건 부동산에 설정된 근저당채무액 100,000,000 2018. 1. 11.자 농협은행 사실조회회신결과 합계 613,000,000

Note 11) 16,500,101

According to this, the sum of active property of Nonparty 1 is approximately KRW 480 million, and the sum of passive property is KRW 613,000,000, and Nonparty 1 is in excess of his/her obligation, so it is recognized that the shortage of joint security has further deepened due to each gift of KRW 85,920,156, which corresponds to the additional part during the above period. Accordingly, the donation of additional portion constitutes a fraudulent act.

D) Sub-committee

Therefore, the donations listed in [Attachment 2.] Nos. 5 through 11 do not constitute fraudulent acts, and the remaining real estate agreements and additional parts pertaining to the instant real estate constitute fraudulent acts that cause or deepen the excess of obligations.

(c) A deceased noble doctor;

1) On June 9, 201, the Defendant asserted that, around June 201, Nonparty 1, who donated Nonparty 1’s share in the instant real estate, the instant bank had been conducting its capital increase, and around May 12, 201, the Defendant secured the amount of capital increase by receiving deposit of KRW 19.5 billion from Fradar Development, and Nonparty 1 did not have any awareness that, as a significant increase in BIS ratio is anticipated, there was a risk that the instant bank’s act of donation would be difficult to receive repayment. Accordingly, Nonparty 1 did not have any intention of deception, and the Defendant also asserted that it is bona fide.

2) The intention of deception refers to that the obligor should not prejudice the obligee when doing a juristic act. Here, the term “inception” is not intended or intended, but rather a simple recognition is sufficient. Ultimately, the intention of deception is to recognize the fact that there is a risk that the obligee would be unable to receive reimbursement due to a lack of joint security, and such recognition is sufficient in relation to the general obligee and does not require the recognition that it would prejudice a specific obligee (Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63102 Decided March 26, 2009).

3) According to the above legal doctrine, Nonparty 1’s deceased will is sufficient with a simple perception and does not have to be aware that it would prejudice a “specific creditor,” and Nonparty 1 is aware that there is a risk that the creditor would make it difficult for the creditor to receive reimbursement due to a shortage of joint security due to the shortage of joint security when each of the donations of this case was in excess of the debt at the time of the donation of this case, and thus, he may be recognized as the intention of deception because he remitted money to the Defendant who

Furthermore, according to the evidence Eul evidence No. 6, the bank of this case attempted to increase its capital several times since 2010, but around March 201, the bank suffered managerial difficulties, such as decline of the BISD ratio to 1.32%, and eventually, it was ordered to suspend its business as an insolvent bank on September 201, 201, and Non-Party 1, as the representative director of the bank of this case, seems to have been well aware of the above management and financial situation of the bank of this case. Nevertheless, in light of the fact that the real estate co-ownership of this case, which was jointly owned by the couple, was transferred to the defendant without any special reason, and traded such as remitting KRW 85 million to the defendant, it is reasonable to deem that Non-Party 1 was aware that each donation of this case constitutes fraudulent act, and there is no evidence to recognize that the defendant is bona fide and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

(d) Revocation of fraudulent act and reinstatement;

Each contract on the instant real estate between the Defendant and Nonparty 1 and each contract on the amount of each gift concluded on the date of donation listed in Articles 15 through 20, and 22 of the List of Donation Nos. 15 through 20, and 22, shall be revoked as fraudulent act, and the Defendant shall implement the procedure for cancelling the registration of cancelling the registration of co-ownership transfer of the instant real estate to Nonparty 1 due to restitution to the original state, and the Plaintiff shall be 85,920,156 won [number 15] + 10,000,000 won (number 17 + 10,000,000 won (number 18), + 10,000 won (number 19,000 + 20,000 won (number 19,200,000 + 17,000 won) + 20,000 won (number 17,15,256) and damages for delay from the following day of this judgment].

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for revocation of fraudulent act and restoration to original state against the defendant shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the plaintiff's claim for revocation of fraudulent act and restoration to original state relating to the gift contract as stated in Nos. 5 through 11 of the list of donations No. 2 of the remaining attached Table 2 shall be dismissed, respectively, as the ground for rejection exists. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal shall be accepted,

[Attachment]

Judges Tae Tae-tae (Presiding Judge) and Park Young-young

1) Since the bankruptcy declaration of the instant bank and the appointment of a trustee in bankruptcy, it is presumed that the Plaintiff, a trustee in bankruptcy, performed the said business.

Note 2) All the financial transaction information from January 1, 2010 to October 16, 2012

3) All the financial transaction information from January 1, 2010 to November 14, 2013

4) Of the above remittance amount, the Defendant is the down payment of KRW 52 million in the sales price of ○○ apartment △△△△ apartment located in Seodaemun-gu, Seoul. Nonparty 1 and the Defendant purchased the above apartment in cooperation with the husband and wife as property dealing with △△△△, and thus, the Defendant alleged that part of the sales price was remitted to the Defendant. However, according to each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, it is reasonable to view that the above apartment was transferred to the Defendant without any consideration, considering that there is no evidence to prove that the above apartment was in the name of Nonparty 1, and that there was no evidence to prove that the couple purchased the above apartment with the jointly cooperation property.

5) In addition, the Defendant asserts that the above remittance amount was first invested in the name of Nonparty 1 in the name of Nonparty 1, but it was due and due to Nonparty 1’s deposit account in the name of Nonparty 1, and then transferred the property to the Defendant’s deposit account, which was originally financed by the Defendant. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

Note 6) However, since each remittance was conducted in a successive manner near time, the existence of piracy was determined as of April 22, 201, which was at the time of the first remittance.

Note 7) On May 3, 2011, the balance of the NH Nonghyup Deposit Account is KRW 5,376,131.

Note 8) According to the evidence No. 18-2, the balance as of April 30, 201 is KRW 114,151,837. The balance as of April 30, 201 is KRW 114,151,837. Each of the above Shares 6) and KRW 7,500 (= KRW 3,443,480 + + KRW 278,500 + KRW 163,00,500 + KRW 162,321 + KRW 5,376,131 + KRW 114,151,837) or active property as of May 3, 2011 is clear that positive property exceeds the aggregate amount of property ( KRW 723,00,00).

9) The value was calculated on the basis of May 31 of the same year, which was adjacent to June 9, 201, as of May 31 of the same year. Meanwhile, according to the evidence 21-2 of the evidence 21-2 of the same year, since the termination refund as of June 30, 201 was KRW 16,50,101, it is apparent that the said amount would result in excess of the obligation due to the instant real estate donation.

Note 10) As described in Note 9, the calculation was made on May 31 of the same year, nearest to June 9, 201, as in Note 9.

Note 11) According to the evidence No. 21-3 of Eul, the termination refund of July 31, 201 was calculated as the termination refund of June 30, 201, on the grounds that there was no significant change compared to June 30, 201, since the termination refund of July 31, 201 is KRW 16,519,961.