Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

A. The summary of the case asserts that the Plaintiff successfully performed services that would be concluded between the Defendant’s local corporation E (E; hereinafter “E”) and the execution body of the Republic of the Philippines (SBMA; hereinafter “SBMA”) pursuant to the Work Agreement concluded with the Defendant on December 3, 2009 (hereinafter “instant Work Agreement”), and that the Defendant sought the payment of the remuneration (US$ 1,650,000, including value added tax) and the delay damages as stipulated in the instant Work Agreement against the Defendant.

The first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the instant business agreement was concluded for the payment of rebates to the public officials of the Philippines through the Plaintiff, in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act, and filed an appeal against it.

B. The reasoning of the court’s explanation on this part of the premise facts is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) the meaning of the instant work agreement and the character of “Unzable Money” is the Defendant’s side, through the Plaintiff and D, agreed to pay to the Plaintiff 30% of the difference when the Plaintiff’s side lowers the difference between USD 5/m2 and the difference of land by negotiating with the SBMA authority.

However, with the approval of the SBMA on September 16, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, according to the Defendant’s proposal that the Plaintiff’s success fee is too excessive to USD 2.7 million [$5 ($3.5%) x 600 x 30%), shall be reduced to USD 1.5 million of the remuneration on December 3, 2009, and the instant service agreement shall be made to be paid at the time of conclusion of the instant lease agreement.