2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On November 14, 2011, the Plaintiff was prosecuted for committing a crime of fraud and a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act by the Busan District Prosecutors' Office in 2011, as follows.

(hereinafter referred to as “related criminal case”. On September 28, 2010, the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff for convenience) heard from E to E that “I had operated both the Plaintiff and Felel together, had been subject to 1.6 billion cost fraud from F, and had been brought a divorce lawsuit against her wife,” and “E had well known that “I had been subject to her divorce lawsuit even from her wife,” and that I would like to know the smuggling public prosecutor and investigator of the Changyang District Public Prosecutor’s Office in the Changyang District Public Prosecutor’s Office. If the Party complained against F in fraud, etc., I would be able to detain the F by requesting the G public prosecutor and investigator of the Yangyang District Public Prosecutor’s Office in Korea, and would be able to receive a refund of the fraudulent amount. Accordingly, if I would have received the agreement from F, then would have changed the amount corresponding to 50% of the amount of the agreement to F.

However, even if the Plaintiff received money from the public prosecutor and investigator under the pretext of solicitation of the above smuggling, it was thought that it will be used for personal purposes, and there was no intention or ability to arrest the F or to receive money from the F in solicitation of the above public prosecutor and investigator.

The Plaintiff, as such, by deceiving E, received money and valuables from E on September 29, 2010, as a solicitation from the public prosecutor and investigator belonging to the above Syang branch office, KRW 500,000,000 on October 3, 2010, KRW 10,000,000 on October 5, 2010, KRW 200,000 on November 4, 2010, KRW 15,000,000 on December 13, 2010, and received money and valuables from public officials as a solicitation for the affairs to be handled by public officials.

B. On July 6, 2012, the Plaintiff was acquitted on the grounds that there was no proof of a crime in the facts charged in the first instance court [the Busan District Court 201Gohap737, 2011 Seocho-gu2795 (Joint)] of the relevant criminal case.

2.3.