1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. On October 14, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a share transfer agreement with the Defendant to acquire 200 shares of registered common shares of C, a stock company owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant share transfer agreement”) and to pay KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff by October 31, 2013 (hereinafter “instant share transfer agreement”).

B. At the time of the instant share transfer contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant confirmed that the Defendant’s agent, the assignee, paid the total amount of the share price, and subsequently, submitted the instant share transfer contract to C to the Plaintiff and provided that the contents of the said contract can be reflected in the register of shareholders

C. The Defendant paid KRW 60 million to the Plaintiff as part of the share transfer price according to the instant share transfer contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. At the time of the instant share transfer agreement, the Defendant agreed to refer the Seoul Central District Court as the competent court where a dispute arises in connection with the said contract. The instant lawsuit is unlawful as it was filed in violation of the agreement on exclusive jurisdiction.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 5 evidence Nos. 2 and 5, if a dispute arises in connection with the contract at the time of the instant stock transfer contract, the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant determined the Seoul Central District Court as the competent court.

If it is unclear whether the jurisdiction agreement is exclusive or additional agreement, the agreement specifying any one of the competing courts of law shall be deemed exclusive agreement, and if not, it shall be deemed additional agreement.

However, the legal court of this case is the Jeonju District Court having jurisdiction over the defendant's domicile and the Incheon District Court having jurisdiction over the plaintiff's domicile, and the plaintiff and the defendant.