1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Seoul Central District Court attached on April 11, 2016 in the case of an application for public summons No. 2015 Chicago863.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 16, 2015, the Defendant transferred 51% of the shares of the Defendant to R Co., Ltd. (former trade name: S Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “R”) owned by the Defendant, and received 96 copies of convertible bonds (U-V) equivalent to KRW 4.8 billion including convertible bonds listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant convertible bonds”) with the acquisition price.

B. Pursuant to the foregoing agreement, R gave 26 copies of convertible bonds (U-W) to the Defendant, and the remaining convertible bonds of this case were put to X, but X promised to enmincing the said convertible bonds and return them to the Defendant by December 2015.

C. However, the Defendant demanded X to return the instant convertible bonds by November 13, 2015, and reported that X lost the instant convertible bonds to the Seoul Gangnam Police Station around November 27, 2015, when X refused to return the instant convertible bonds.

On December 17, 2015, the Defendant filed a request for a public summons on the ground that the Convertible Bonds were lost by Seoul Central District Court 2015 Chicago863, and the said court rendered a judgment of nullification on April 11, 2016 (hereinafter “instant judgment of nullification”).

The Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the nullification judgment of this case is null and void because the purchase was 35 copies while rendering a nullification judgment on the Convertible Bonds (AF-V) of this case, and that the purchase was not specified accurately as the subject of the judgment. However, not only the serial numbers of the Convertible Bonds of this case are stated in the above nullification judgment but also the report of loss (No. 12-1) is stated in the Convertible Bonds AF-V of S 16 Convertible Bonds (AF-V). Thus, it can be determined that it should be invalidated on the AF-V’s 70 deed.

E. Of the convertible bonds of this case, the plaintiff A, M, Y, Z, Z, AA, Q, the plaintiff B, AB, AC, and AD, the plaintiff C, K, L, the plaintiff D, N, the plaintiff E, and the plaintiff Eul, the plaintiff Eul, and the plaintiff Eul.