2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation of Vietnamese, a corporation operating a hotel and a casino (hereinafter “instant hotel”) in the name of “Brest Ham Strip” in the Vietnamese State.

B. On December 15, 2014, the Plaintiff determined and lent USD 645,160 (hereinafter “$”) to the Defendant at 18% per annum.

On the same day, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) stating the amount of the promissory note, maturity, interest in arrears, the place of payment, and the issue date are both blanks, and the payee issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”).

C. The Plaintiff supplemented the amount of the Promissory Notes in the instant case as “617,058 dollars,” the maturity of which is “617,058 dollars,” “18% per annum,” “18% interest in arrears, Gangnam-gu Seoul in the Republic of Korea, and the issue date of the Promissory Notes in December 23, 2014.” The Plaintiff currently holds the Promissory Notes in the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Gap evidence 3-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the instant lawsuit seeking the payment of the Promissory Notes to the Defendant, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff and the Defendant are not entitled to the international jurisdiction of the Korean court on the instant case, since the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to approve “if there is a dispute, it falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Vietnam law”.

In the Promissory Notes (Evidence No. 3-2 of the Promissory Notes No. 1) written together with the Promissory Notes No. 3 of the instant Promissory Notes, the Defendant shall have jurisdiction over the instant Promissory Notes in the court of Vietnam or in any place in

Since this case was agreed upon, it has jurisdiction over the court of the Republic of Korea.

Even if the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to have a monopoly jurisdiction over the dispute of the Promissory Notes, the records of this case are examined.