2.The following amounts, among the judgments of the court of first instance, exceed the amount ordering payment:

A. On August 22, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on or around July 16, 2050 against the police officer, etc., who belongs to the Defendant, seeking compensation for mental damage caused by illegally murdering the Plaintiff’s father G (Seoul Central District Court 2012 Gohap526930), and the court of first instance rendered judgment on February 1, 2013 that “the Defendant shall pay consolation money equivalent to KRW 136,00,000 and delay damages to the Plaintiff,” and that “the Defendant shall pay consolation money equivalent to KRW 136,00,000,000 and delay damages to the Plaintiff,” both the Plaintiff and the Defendant filed an appeal (Seoul High Court 2013Na203611), and the first instance court was repealed by the former Accounting Act (Seoul High Court 2013Na203611) and the Defendant’s appeal was dismissed on July 11, 2013 under Article 25 of the former Act.

3) On November 14, 2013, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the above appellate court and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court on the grounds that the defendant's appeal against the above judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2013Da209519) was dismissed on the ground that, even if the debtor had shown the same attitude that he did not invoke the statute of limitations after the completion of the statute of limitations and had the creditor trusted it, the obligor's defense for the completion of the statute of limitations is an abuse of rights only if the obligee exercised his rights within a reasonable period. However, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's long-term statute of limitations defense cannot be deemed as an abuse of rights because the plaintiff did not exercise his rights within a reasonable period from the date of truth-finding decision of the past reorganization Commission under the jurisdiction of the defendant who confirmed the plaintiff as the victim of the case in the case in the case in question. 4) on the ground that the above judgment of appeal was remanded to the Seoul High Court