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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On November 7, 1994, the Defendant issued one copy of a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) stating “the face value of KRW 19.2 million, the payee, the Plaintiff, and the due date on December 10, 1994, the date of issuance, November 7, 1994, and the Defendant,” and issued it to the Plaintiff by means of a notarial deed.

B. On May 19, 195, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the claim for payment of bills and checks with the Seoul Central Court 95 Ghana147221, and on September 29, 1995, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the above court’s judgment that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 5 million won with the interest of 20% per annum from September 29, 1995 to the day of full payment.”

Then, on September 27, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the interruption of extinctive prescription with respect to the above judgment claim under the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005Ga202653, and on October 5, 2005, the Plaintiff received a decision of performance recommendation with the purport that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 5 million and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from September 29, 1995 to the date of full payment,” and the said decision of performance recommendation was served to the Defendant on December 6, 2005, but the Defendant did not raise any objection and became final and conclusive on December 21, 2005.

(2) The judgment of the court below in this case or the judgment of the court below in this case (hereinafter referred to as the "the judgment of the court below in this case") as the context requires the execution recommendation decision of 2005Ga Office 202653, which is the above 95Ga Office 14721 and its prescription extension lawsuit.

On November 3, 2009, the Plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 9 million from the Defendant and agreed to the effect that “The claim for the amount of the Promissory Notes No. 95 Ghana 147221 and 2005 Ghana 202653 is extinguished and no objection is raised against each other in the future.”

(hereinafter “instant agreement” or “instant agreement”) D.

However, on June 22, 2005, the Plaintiff filed another suit against the Defendant for the claim for a bill of exchange with the Seoul Central Court 2005Gada135814, and the said court served by public notice the Defendant’s duplicate of the complaint and the notice on the date of pleading.