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

A. 1) Status of the Parties C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”).

(2) In order to engage in the business of entertainment, etc., the company was established on February 8, 2006, and was treated as being dissolved on December 6, 201.2) The company was treated as a representative director, and the company was registered as a director, and the Defendant was a non-registered director of the company.

3) The Plaintiff is an investor in the foregoing C. B. The Plaintiff’s investment Plaintiff received the Defendant’s proposal and around April 2006, and thereby CF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”).

(1) the investment of KRW 1 billion (hereinafter referred to as “investment”) necessary to take over the capital of KRW 1 billion is called the instant investment.

C. C. The F takeover work of C promoted by the Defendant, D, and E as the main axis was finally unpaid on or around December 2006. D. The Defendant’s cash storage certificate prepared on August 9, 2007, stating the following purport (hereinafter “the cash storage certificate of this case”).

A) The Plaintiff was drawn up and delivered to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff confirm that the cash 400 million won to be paid to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff were kept until February 20, 2008. On August 9, 2007, it includes the fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 7, and Eul No. 1 (a serial number).

(hereinafter the same shall apply)

each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant, who recommended the Plaintiff to make the instant investment, was liable for the Plaintiff’s failure to make an investment, and that the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 400 million to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 400 million and damages for delay pursuant to the instant agreement.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, the cash custody certificate of this case is to the Plaintiff, taking into account the evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 6 as well as the overall purport of the pleading.