1. Defendant A shall deliver to Defendant B the real estate listed in the attached Form.

2. The defendant B is described in paragraph 1 from the defendant A.

1. Indication of claims: To be as specified in attached Form 1;

2. Judgment without holding any pleadings (Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. The Plaintiff’s dismissal portion is entitled to the payment of the amount calculated by the ratio of 23.363% per annum to KRW 15,817,495 and to KRW 14,595,402 from December 13, 2014 to the date of full payment with respect to the Defendant B’s delivery of real estate indicated in the separate sheet from Defendant A.

In other words, while the plaintiff claimed the collection amount against the defendant B, the plaintiff sought the amount of the loan to the defendant A, not the amount of the claim for seizure and collection decision.

However, the Plaintiff, as the collection obligee, can only seek the payment of the lease deposit against the Defendant A to the Defendant B.

In addition, since the obligation to return the lease deposit of Defendant B is concurrently performed with the obligation to deliver the real estate of Defendant A with respect to the time of occurrence of damages for delay, the responsibility for delay arises from the day following the delivery date of the above real estate by Defendant A.

In addition, with respect to the rate of damages for delay, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff may not claim the amount of damages for delay at the rate of the agreed damages for delay between Defendant A and Defendant B, and this is a lawsuit for future performance, so the application of the statutory interest rate under Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings is excluded pursuant to the proviso of Article 3(1) of the same Act, and thus, it cannot be claimed at the statutory interest rate

Ultimately, the percentage of damages for delay that the plaintiff can seek is 5% per annum under the Civil Code.

(The plaintiff stated in the complaint that the defendant B is disputing the obligation to pay the bonds, and that it is necessary to claim in advance since the defendant B did not submit a written response. Therefore, the defendant B's delivery of the above real estate from the defendant A as well as the seizure of the above bonds to the plaintiff.