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

A. The plaintiff's assertion made an agreement with the defendant as to the contingent fee at the time of winning the case by entrusting the so-called "Reports Franchise Case" as 3.85% (including value-added tax). The defendant individually delegated by the plaintiff's members, applied for the determination of the amount of litigation expenses against the Republic of Korea, and transferred the stamp and service fees to the client, and did not refund the remaining KRW 189,378,082, among the litigation expenses returned according to the individual agreement that the successful fee shall be the contingent fee. The agreement that shall be paid for the contingent fee after the winning of the lawsuit is contrary to the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of equity, and most of the persons who delegated the defendant with the claim for the determination of the amount of litigation expenses is against the principle of good faith and the principle of equity, and the defendant is obligated to return the above KRW 189,378,082 to the plaintiff.

B. According to the overall purport of the statement and arguments, the defendant entered into a delegation contract with the plaintiff's non-party members or individuals who are not the plaintiff's members of the plaintiff on the application for the determination of the amount of litigation expenses, and the defendant returned the service fees and stamp to the mandator from among the litigation expenses finalized under the agreement that "the service fees and stamp fees shall be contingent fees, but the service fees and stamp fees shall be refunded." Even according to the plaintiff's assertion, it is obvious that the plaintiff is not the party who entered into an agreement with the defendant with the defendant, and there is no assertion as to the fact that the plaintiff received the assignment of claims from the individual. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is without merit without the need to determine the unfairness of the above agreement.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff is not a party-qualified person, but is a party-qualified person in the lawsuit for performance.