1.(a)

The defendant and C entered into on September 6, 2013 with respect to the share of 8297/11,630 of the 11,603 square meters of Kimpo-si D Forest.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the purpose of all pleadings, either in the statements set forth in Gap evidence 1 to 5, and in Gap evidence set forth in Gap evidence 7 to 9:

The Plaintiff’s claim relation to C is proposed to make an investment from C in around 201 to the age clubs operated by E in Thailand, and accordingly, to C around July 28, 201, KRW 100,000,000, around July 28, 2011; and

8. Around 29.29. Around 40,000,000 won remitted total of KRW 140,000.

2) After receiving a request from the Plaintiff for the return of the said investment amount, C returned KRW 70,00,000,000, in total, around February 27, 2012, and KRW 30,000,000, in total, around the same month. 3) On the other hand, around May 24, 2012, the Plaintiff set the maturity period of KRW 100,000,000 to C and lent KRW 5,000,000 to C.

4) As to this, C is a collateral against the Plaintiff, the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F 3 Dong 401 (hereinafter “instant loan”).

2) The supply contract made with respect to the supply (hereinafter “instant supply contract”)

(B) According to the above supply contract, the supply price of the loan of this case was KRW 248,00,000, G, and the buyer were in public disturbance, and the purchaser of the above supply contract was at the end of the above supply contract, and the purchaser of the right to sell the loan of this case was at the end of the above supply contract, and the purchaser of the right to sell the loan of this case was at the end of the sale contract and at the end of the above sale contract, “the purchaser of the right to sell the loan of this case is at the end of the sale contract.” (B) On February 27, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for payment order seeking payment of KRW 70,000,000 and KRW 10,000,000,000, which was not returned to C, out of the investment funds remitted by the Plaintiff to C around February 27, 2013.

2) According to C’s objection to an order of payment issued upon the Plaintiff’s request, the above case was conducted as a litigation procedure (Yancheon District Court Branch 2013Gahap2930, August 29, 2013, the Defendant C, as stated in the above court, was subject to the Interest Limitation Act out of KRW 172,50,000 and agreed interest rate of KRW 5,000,000.