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

A. The Plaintiff is a staff member of the Chinese Film Law Firm, and the Defendant is the owner of land, etc. (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Around March 2010, the Defendant: (a) ordered an agent for the sale of the instant land to the Haba Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Maba”); and (b) the Haba shall pay 1% of the total sales price to the Haba, among law firms, as a trustee agency fee; and (c) deposited the trustee agency for the sale price.

C. As the Defendant was unable to pay KRW 1.5 billion to the Defendant at the time of the above sales agency contract, on April 30, 2010, the Defendant terminated the sales agency contract with the E&A and made the E sell agency on June 29, 2010.

E, on the same day, asked the Plaintiff to transfer the deposit amount of KRW 100 million (hereinafter “the deposit of this case”) to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff accepted this and remitted KRW 100 million to the Defendant.

E. However, E’s sales agency business terminated without any particular outcome, and the Defendant has been in charge of sales agency business to other companies, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Gap 1 through 9, 11 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the fact that there is no dispute

2. Claims concerning the cause of claims;

A. The instant deposit is money having the nature of the deposit to be refunded upon the completion of the sales agency business. Since the sales agency business actually ends, the Defendant shall return the deposit to the Plaintiff that paid the deposit.

B. Since the deposit of this case did not incur damage to the defendant in relation to the sales agency business, the defendant shall return it to the plaintiff who paid it.

C. E borrowed KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff and paid the instant security money to the Defendant. For the foregoing reason, the Defendant shall return it to E, and thus, it must be paid to the Plaintiff who subrogated the insolvent E.

3. The judgment bond of this case is the sales agency business.