1. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B is due to sale and purchase on October 2006 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 list to the Plaintiff.

1. In this case, there are many cases where the Plaintiff and the Defendants, without distinction between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s husband, prove that the legal effect due to the act done in the name D belongs to the Plaintiff.

In such cases, the act committed in the name of D shall be deemed as the Plaintiff’s act, and D shall be deemed as the Plaintiff’s act.

The plaintiff is the wife of D, the partner of the defendant B, and the husband of the defendant B.

The defendants live in the United States and own several real estate in the Republic of Korea.

B. On July 16, 2004, the Plaintiff sold each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) to Defendant B for KRW 370,000,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 16, 2004 with respect to each of the instant real estate.

C. On September 12, 2006, the Plaintiff (D) remitted KRW 199,789,700 (= KRW 9,641,358, KRW 190,148,342) to Defendant C.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap 2, 3, 4, 52 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on Defendant C’s counterclaim claim

A. 1) Defendant C’s assertion on the loan claim is as follows: Defendant C’s assertion on December 1, 2001; Defendant C loaned KRW 21,00,000,000 on July 4, 2003; KRW 10,000,00 on November 3, 2003; KRW 5,00,000 on March 22, 2004; KRW 20,000,000 on July 26, 2004; KRW 10,000,000 on November 10, 2004; and KRW 50,000,000 on March 31, 200, KRW 200 on March 31, 2005; and KRW 230,301,000 on September 26, 201; and Plaintiff C loaned from the Plaintiff.

1.(c)

A reimbursement of KRW 199,789,700 as stated in the port was received.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the remainder of the borrowed money of KRW 23,310,300 (=223,100,000 - KRW 199,789,70) and delay damages to Defendant C.

B) Since the money that Defendant C sent to the Plaintiff by Defendant C was not a loan or exempted, etc., the above argument by Defendant C is without merit. As such, Defendant C’s judgment on the claim for return of KRW 21,00,000,000 on December 10, 201 is written and arguments are made.