1. The defendant shall submit to the plaintiff KRW 120,000,000 as well as the building indicated in the attached list to the defendant.

1. Return of deposit;

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Judgment by publication (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Claim for damages for delay;

A. The plaintiff's assertion is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day after the copy of the complaint of this case is served to the day of complete payment.

B. (1) In the event both parties’ obligations are simultaneously performed under bilateral contract of legal principles, even if one party’s obligation becomes due, the other party’s obligation is not liable for the delay of performance until the other party’s obligation is performed. Such effect does not necessarily result in the claimant’s exercise of the right of defense for simultaneous performance.

In case of providing the performance of one's own obligation under a bilateral contract in which simultaneous performance is concerned, if it is necessary to perform the other's obligation, the other party's act is completed at any time when it is necessary to perform the obligation, and the other party shall be notified of the completion of the preparation to perform and the receipt and notified to the other party shall be made

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da3764 Decided July 10, 2001. Where a lessor cannot be deemed liable for delay with respect to the duty to return lease deposit in simultaneous performance relationship, the interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings shall not apply to the recognition of a lessor’s liability for delay with respect to the duty to return lease deposit after the date of delivery of the building.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da43370 delivered on October 25, 2002). (2) In the event of this proposal, the plaintiff still has the building indicated in the attached list to the defendant.