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

A. On August 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff participated in the auction procedure of Seoul Western District Court C case (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) upon the Defendant’s investment recommendation and agreed to divide the proceeds therefrom, and deposited KRW 50 million out of the bid bond into the Defendant’s account. In the instant auction procedure, the Defendant paid the bid bond of KRW 12.4 million including the Plaintiff’s money, to the court, but received all the bid deposit due to the decision of rejection of sale. As a result, the Plaintiff did not refund the said investment deposit to the Plaintiff even though the said investment failed to achieve the purpose, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the said money to the Plaintiff. As such, even if the Plaintiff deposited the said money into the Defendant’s account upon D’s request, it shall be deemed that a partnership contract related to the said investment was concluded between the Plaintiff, Defendant, and D, and as seen earlier, the said investment failed to achieve the objective, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the investment

B. The Defendant’s assertion that deposited KRW 50 million into the Defendant’s account at D’s request for participation in the instant auction procedure at D around August 2013. Since the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to participate in investment related to the instant auction procedure or did not have concluded an agreement related to the agreement with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to return the money as stated in the purport of the claim to the Plaintiff.

2. The judgment was examined; the Plaintiff deposited KRW 50 million in total with the Defendant’s account three times from August 30, 2013 to September 4, 2013; the Defendant, together with the Plaintiff’s said money, paid KRW 12.4 million to the court in the auction procedure of this case after the Defendant decided not to grant the sale on September 12, 2013, and then received the full refund of the said money again, either the dispute between the parties or the evidence No. 1 and No. 7.