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

A. On October 30, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) between Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) and the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff leased the port owned by the Plaintiff to Defendant B; (b) Defendant B agreed to pay the Plaintiff rent of KRW 4,500,000 per month; and (c) Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant B’s obligations.

The Defendants are obligated to pay rent of KRW 81,00,000 and damages for delay, as they used the Plaintiff-owned port for 18 months from September 2013 to February 2015.

B. According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 1, the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed on October 30, 2012 to lease the Plaintiff’s navigation gear at KRW 4,500,000 per month at the Vietnam site where Defendant B will work (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

2) On the other hand, considering the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Defendant B entered into a D contract with Vietnam enterprise on December 20, 2012, and Defendant B notified Defendant B that the contract will be terminated if it does not bring equipment to the construction site until February 10, 2013. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23720, Feb. 10, 2013>

In addition, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff was subject to termination of the construction contract from Vietnam company since the Plaintiff did not lease the port to D site. Since the Plaintiff confirmed after the instant lease contract, it was impossible to believe the Defendants’ credit, and the Defendants were also aware of such fact.

In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff leased the port of navigation in accordance with the instant lease agreement, and there is no other evidence to support the Plaintiff’s assertion.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim for rent on the ground that the Plaintiff leased a port-going vessel under the instant lease agreement.

2. On June 2013: