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

A. On October 28, 2011, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Han Mine Construction Co., Ltd. agreed to deliver to the Plaintiff a bill of exchange with respect to the Defendant’s repayment of the Defendant’s goods payment obligation, and accordingly, Han Mine Construction Co., Ltd. endorsed and delivers to the Plaintiff an electronic bill (the instant bill of exchange) causing KRW 33 million at the face value of 28,000,000,000 (the issuer, Minedo Construction Co., Ltd., and the date of issuance, October 25, 2011; the due date of payment, February 28, 2012, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant bill”) signed and delivered to the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 10 million to the Defendant in installments, which is the difference between the face value of the said bill and the amount equivalent to KRW 23 million for the goods to the Defendant. The Defendant paid KRW 30 million to the Defendant in relation to the said bill on November 1, 201 and the 22th day of the same month. The Defendant paid KRW 10 million to the Defendant, Korea Mineral Construction Co., Ltd. on Nov. 4, 201 and KRW 20 million on Nov. 22, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 2-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that although the plaintiff presented the bill of this case for payment, the plaintiff was refused to pay the bill of this case due to the issuer's default, the plaintiff suffered losses equivalent to KRW 10 million which was remitted to the defendant, and the defendant obtained profits equivalent to the above amount, and therefore the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 10 million and the damages for delay.

It was true that the Defendant received KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff, but it was true that the Plaintiff, as an act of fact, transferred the money to Korea Mine Construction Co., Ltd. to the Defendant and transferred it to Korea Mine Construction Co., Ltd., and that there was no benefit.

The facts that the Defendant received KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff alone cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant obtained a benefit equivalent to the amount.