A. The defendant is a representative lawyer of law office C and D, and the plaintiff is a staff member assisting the secretary general of the law office C in the law office C.

B. The defendant around August 2009 against the plaintiff 45 representative F of the party introduced through E: Suwon District Court 2009Gahap16298 (2) Ha and 45 other (including F) nearby land owners are the plaintiff, and the Korea Land and Housing Corporation and Gyeonggi-do are the defendant and claim damages for ventilation interference, air pollution, complex malodor, noise damage due to the second freedom establishment, and 5% of the amount of KRW 5,093,531,5362 of the revenue, KRW 18,382,30, and KRW 300,000,000 as of the last day of November 16, 2012 (the Seoul High Court 2013Na5208). The defendant's judgment against the plaintiff on Sep. 27, 2013, the amount of compensation for less than KRW 160,500,0000,000,0000,000,000,000 won.

The contract for the acceptance of a lawsuit in the first instance court was concluded in the name of D.

C. On December 22, 2010, the Defendant, as an attorney at the above case, was adopted by applying for on-site inspection and damage appraisal to the above court. However, the appraisal cost to be prepaid has reached KRW 100 million.

F If the appraisal cost is not provided for more than 70 million won and the remainder appraisal cost is paid in lieu of the attorney-at-law office, and if you will bear the other actual cost together with three representatives of the clients, the client will be paid in lieu of the client (100% of the appraisal cost is paid in favor of the client).