1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Plaintiff’s counterclaim from November 17, 2016 to February 15, 2017.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. On February 20, 2014, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for a trial on the division of property by a de facto marriage destruction under this Court 2013-Ma133. On February 20, 2014, the said court rendered a partial decision against the Plaintiff to accept the Plaintiff to pay KRW 142 million to the Defendant and damages for delay.

Accordingly, the parties filed an appeal with the Chuncheon District Court 2014B5. On February 17, 2016, the appellate court changed the judgment of the first instance on February 17, 2016, and decided that the Plaintiff shall implement the procedures for transfer of ownership based on the division of property as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Defendant, and shall pay 104,00,000 won and damages for delay.

In this regard, all the parties re-appeal to Supreme Court Decision 2016S36 Decided June 3, 2016, but the above decision of the appellate court became final and conclusive as it is on June 8, 2016 by the ruling of rejection of the trial as of June 3, 2016.

(hereinafter “Case of Claim for Judgment on Division of Property”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (including additional number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. According to the following: (a) the amount of division of property is calculated on the premise that the Defendant would take over the obligation to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million with respect to each real estate listed in the [Attachment List 1 and 2] in the case of a property division claim seeking the return of unjust enrichment; (b) however, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff transferred the ownership of each real estate from the Plaintiff according to the decision of the property division claim without accepting the lease deposit repayment claim; and (c) the Defendant received all the judgment money.

Therefore, without any legal ground, the defendant gains profits by removing the obligation to return the above lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million and thereby causes damage equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant shall be the plaintiff.