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

A. The plaintiff is an attorney-at-law belonging to Seoul Local Bar Association.

B. On April 18, 2016, the Korean Bar Association Disciplinary Committee decided to take six months of suspension from office against the Plaintiff as grounds for disciplinary action as follows.

Although the Plaintiff filed an objection, on December 26, 2016, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s objection (hereinafter “instant decision”) on the grounds that the suspicion as follows is recognized and a disciplinary decision is reasonable.

1. The Plaintiff was delegated by the petitioner B with the duty of good faith and the duty to maintain the dignity of the petitioner B (hereinafter “instant ground for disciplinary action”), and received a total of KRW 21.3 million from August 20, 201 to June 201, the Plaintiff violated the duty of good faith and the duty to maintain the dignity of the attorney, by failing to explain and report to the petitioner on the progress of the lawsuit and the outcome of the lawsuit until four years have passed since the petitioner requested the return of the said amount, and preparing a promissory note document that requires the petitioner to pay KRW 15 million on May 12, 2014 when the petitioner demanded the return of the said amount, and fails to perform it after May 30, 2014, which is the due date. On July 1, 2014, the Plaintiff violated the duty of good faith and the duty to maintain the dignity of the attorney, by returning only KRW 5 million to the petitioner and returning the remainder.

2. The Plaintiff breached the duty of good faith and the duty to maintain dignity against the petitioner C (hereinafter “instant disciplinary ground”) concluded a delegation contract with the petitioner C on August 23, 2012. However, the Plaintiff breached the duty of good faith and the duty to maintain dignity as an attorney-at-law on the ground that the petitioner was insufficient to perform his/her duties and did not perform his/her duties despite having been requested by the petitioner to refund the fees.

3. On October 10, 2013, the Plaintiff violated the duty to maintain dignity of the petitioner D (hereinafter “instant disciplinary ground”) (hereinafter “instant ground”) filed a claim for the return of development cost under the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Na57152, supra, at the F Office of Law Firm F Office located in the fourth floor of the Seocho-gu Seoul E-building, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Seoul, and from the petitioner D (the appellate court of the case 2013Gada415027)