A. From the end of December 2002, the Defendant introduced C in the process of promoting the reconstruction project of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B Housing on January 17, 2003, and entered into a contract with C to pay C the service cost of KRW 350 million (the value-added tax should be increased to KRW 450 million, and the value-added tax should be imposed separately).

B. On January 17, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to receive KRW 200 million (excluding value-added tax) from the Defendant in return for the Plaintiff’s introduction of C to the Defendant as above and in cooperation with C to resolve the above various issues.

C. Around May 2003, the Defendant entered into a contract for construction work with B-building housing association, and paid C the above KRW 295 billion out of the above KRW 45 billion, and paid the Plaintiff KRW 90 million out of the above KRW 200 million to C.

With the consent of C on January 29, 2004, the Plaintiff agreed to receive from the Defendant the amount of KRW 110 million (=45 million - 295 million) against C’s service charges against the Defendant (i.e., KRW 45 million).

E. On July 29, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of the remaining service costs (including value-added tax) and the damages for delay thereof (excluding damages for delay on value-added tax), and received a judgment from the Defendant on July 29, 2005 (Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2004Gahap12903) that “the Defendant would pay damages for delay from July 30, 2005 to the Plaintiff [the amount of KRW 278,66,64, and KRW 200 million [the amount of KRW 110 million [the amount of KRW 200 million]].” The above judgment was finalized on September 15, 2005.

F. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription.

2. Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act applicable provisions of Acts.