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

A. On April 7, 1992, the Plaintiff worked for C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”) prior to the merger with the Defendant Company, and was dismissed on May 13, 1998, filed a lawsuit against C to confirm the invalidity of the dismissal and the claim for wages (hereinafter referred to as “the lawsuit to nullify the dismissal of this case”) with the Seoul Western District Court on July 6, 200, and confirmed that the dismissal of C against the Plaintiff on May 13, 1998 by the above court "C is null and void. C was sentenced to the judgment that "on May 14, 1998, to pay the Plaintiff the amount of money at the rate of 2,602,70 won each month from the date of the rehabilitation of the Plaintiff." C appealed appealed but withdrawn the appeal on April 16, 201. < Amended by Act No. 6506, May 14, 1998>

(Final Court Decision 200 decided July 28, 200). (B)

C around September 18, 200, after the first instance judgment of the lawsuit invalidating the dismissal of this case was rendered, C notified the Plaintiff of the reinstatement retroactively from September 15, 2000, which was the date of September 18, 200, but did not actually be reinstated by the date of retirement due to the reasons attributable to the Defendant Company

C. The Plaintiff asserted that D, who worked for the Defendant Company, paid KRW 160,048,942 on behalf of the Plaintiff at the amount equivalent to the actual wage during the period of dismissal, on behalf of the Defendant Company. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming an agreed amount claim (hereinafter “instant contract payment lawsuit”) with the Seoul Central District Court, stating that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 160,048,942 won and the amount equivalent to 25% per annum from December 5, 200 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant contract payment lawsuit”).

Although the plaintiff won in the first instance court, the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2005Na15873) did not have legitimate authority to conclude that D will pay KRW 160,048,942 to the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant company. Even if the above agreement has an effect to the defendant company, the court rendered a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim on April 26, 2006 on the ground that it is null and void in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act, and the above appellate court's judgment is the same as the Supreme Court on February 14, 2008.