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

A. On March 3, 2006, the Plaintiff’s adult entertainment room (hereinafter “instant entertainment room”) in the name of “C”, a business operator registered, was established at D 105 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) in Silung-si (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) and closed on September 18, 2006.

B. On March 5, 2007, Sii Tax Office imposed KRW 636,819,570 on the instant entertainment room on the Plaintiff on March 5, 2006.

(hereinafter “instant taxation disposition”). On February 11, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant taxation disposition under the Plaintiff’s name as Suwon District Court 2008Guhap1468, but on February 11, 2009, the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed on November 4, 2009, and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(hereinafter referred to as "relevant administrative litigation"). (c)

On Oct. 6, 2009, Siri-si did not attach all the rights to the shares 2,933 shares owned by the Plaintiff and its shares to collect the amount in arrears of the value-added tax.

At present, the amount in arrears of the value-added tax of the Plaintiff is KRW 636,819,570 and KRW 19,104,580 as well as the increased amount of KRW 458,509,80 as well as KRW 1,114,43,950 as well.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 12 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion only lent the name of the business operator of the instant entertainment room established by the Defendant to receive the return of KRW 80 million, including investment money, from the Defendant, and did not run the instant entertainment room. The Defendant obtained profit as the actual business operator of the instant entertainment room, but the value-added tax was imposed on the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant entertainment room’s business, and the judgment of loss was finalized in the relevant administrative litigation instituted by the Defendant under the name of the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff was determined as the obligor of value-added tax of KRW 1,14,43,950 and suffered damages equivalent to the above amount, and the Defendant.