1. The Defendant shall pay Plaintiff A corporation KRW 10,00,000, and KRW 20,000,000 to Plaintiff B as well as each of the above amounts.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties 1) Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”).

E (hereinafter “instant golf course”) located in the Republic of Korea D in Macheon-si.

(2) The Defendant is a person who belongs to the “E Shareholders Council” comprised of those who become the shareholders of G according to the rehabilitation plan authorized in the rehabilitation procedure (Korean District Court 2011 Ma28) against G, and is the spouse of F from 1988 to January 30, 2015.

B. G’s golf course operation and rehabilitation procedures, etc. (1) since around 2007, G had been created and operated the instant golf course, but it was not possible to repay PF loans due to failure to sell membership rights. Ultimately, upon receiving a decision from the Jung-gu District Court on December 9, 201, G’s decision on commencing rehabilitation procedures. However, the instant golf course site and ground buildings were sold by public auction on the wind that the repayment of debts pursuant to the rehabilitation plan approved in the rehabilitation procedures was not possible, and H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”).

A) A successful bid was awarded by the Gyeonggi-do Governor on February 28, 2014. H is running the instant golf course in the name of “I” under the name of “I” after obtaining approval for the modification of a business plan with respect to the instant golf course from G to H. 2. 2) Since the instant golf course, which is a major business asset of G, was sold in the public sale process on January 29, 2014 and becomes unable to generate profits through G’s business, it is evident that G is unlikely to implement the rehabilitation plan.

In addition, the decision was made to discontinue the rehabilitation procedure for G.

3 The shareholders of G have abolished the rehabilitation procedure for G and H have purchased the site of the golf course in this case and commenced the business, and appeal against the decision to discontinue the rehabilitation procedure in this case.