1. As to the real estate listed in Attachment 1 List of Real Estate:

A. On August 22, 2013 between Defendant B and F Co., Ltd.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in light of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 9, 12, Gap evidence 23-1, 23-2, Eul evidence 26-2, Eul evidence 7-1 through 14, Eul evidence 4-2, and Eul evidence 41.

The Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment against F Co., Ltd. (1) is a corporation with the purpose of establishing and operating sports facilities and ancillary facilities, and F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) is a corporation with the purpose of civil engineering and construction business.

(2) The Plaintiff asserted that F lent KRW 40,000,000 to the Plaintiff and filed a lawsuit against the Seoul Central District Court seeking a loan. The Plaintiff filed a counterclaim against F to seek a return of unjust enrichment by asserting that the Plaintiff had paid the loan to F in excess of the construction cost corresponding to F in relation to the new construction contract, such as the G MH driving range, which was terminated by the contract with F, in the Han River-si, the G MH driving range, etc.

(3) On January 9, 2013, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a ruling that “F’s principal claim is dismissed,” and F shall pay 5% per annum from August 3, 2011 to January 9, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, to the day of full payment” (Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na12534, 201, 2012Gahap24892, and 327Da7537, 2000, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment). The judgment of the first instance became final and conclusive through the appeal of the F [The Supreme Court Decision 2014Da7537, 2014, 2014Da74414, 204, 20544, 2054).”

(4) On February 12, 2013, the Plaintiff rendered the judgment of the court of first instance that ordered payment of the principal and interest of the instant lawsuit at the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “instant claim for return of unjust enrichment”).