1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 150,000,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from June 16, 2015 to July 8, 2016.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, on May 16, 2008, conducted by the Defendant on May 16, 2008, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 1-1-4, Gap evidence 2-2-3, and Gap evidence 4.

(C) If the Plaintiff invested KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff, the Defendant allocated 15% of the shares of the corporation to be newly established in relation to the said business to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant secured C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “C”) by collateraling the said investment amount until the opening of the golf practice course.

(2) Of the shares in D, an investment agreement between the Defendant and the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “instant investment agreement”) under which the Defendant was holding shares (the share ratio: 24 per cent) under the name of D.

(E) The fact that the Plaintiff entered into a contract and on the same day, upon the Defendant’s request, E (hereinafter “E”);

The defendant and the plaintiff's wife F are substantial management owners.

It may be recognized that the account in the name of 150 million won has been deposited.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant additionally invested KRW 60 million in relation to the instant business.

According to the statement No. 2-4 and No. 5, the plaintiff paid KRW 50 million on September 21, 2009, and KRW 10,000 on September 30, 2009, respectively, to E’s account under the name of E. In light of the fact that the time of deposit is recognized as the time when the plaintiff first deposited its investment funds in relation to the business of the instant golf driving range, and there was about 16 months at intervals of time from the time when the plaintiff first deposited its investment funds in relation to the instant golf driving range, and there was a lot of money transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant by jointly investing in many other businesses other than the instant golf driving range at a similar time, it is insufficient to recognize that the amount additionally deposited by the plaintiff as above was paid to the defendant as investment funds in the instant golf driving range business.