2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff, an attorney-at-law in the process of the relevant lawsuit, was requested to defend from D, the Defendant of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) in Seoul High Court, and as a result, D was rendered a judgment of innocence on December 31, 2010, and the judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

B. On September 6, 2011, an attorney fees of KRW 40,000,000,000, out of the amount of attorney fees of KRW 15,000,000 shall be reimbursed and guaranteed until December 30, 201, as a guarantor in the event of failure to repay the amount of KRW 25,00,000,000 and submit a letter of performance.

Around September 6, 2011, the Defendant, known to D and D, prepared a letter of performance (hereinafter “instant performance letter”) of the following forms and contents (hereinafter “instant performance letter”) and sent it to the Plaintiff.

C. D’s payment of part of D’s contingent remuneration was filed against the State with Seoul High Court 201co20, and received compensation of KRW 22,000,000 on August 12, 2011. Of them, KRW 17,000,000 was paid to the Plaintiff as part of the aforementioned contingent remuneration.

D The remaining contingent remuneration amount of KRW 23,000,000 (=40,000,000-17,000,000) has not yet been paid to the Plaintiff due to the lack of any specific assets.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1, fact-finding results against the Minister of Court Administration, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s rejection of the instant performance is not a simple guarantee agreement, but a separate agreement that the Defendant would not cause damage to the Plaintiff regardless of D’s payment ability, and thus, the ten-year statute of limitations should apply.

B. In light of the content of the Defendant’s letter of performance of this case, the Defendant will bear the Defendant’s guaranteed liability for the contingent fee obligation.