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

A. The plaintiff served as the representative lawyer of the law firm from October 24, 1990 to July 12, 2004, the plaintiff was appointed as a representative lawyer again from February 25, 2009, and on June 30, 2009, the above legal entity was dissolved, and the defendant was appointed as a representative liquidator. 2) The defendant served as a representative lawyer of the law firm from May 28, 1999 to September 30, 200, while serving as a representative lawyer of the law firm from March 25, 2006 to February 25, 2009.

B. On June 12, 2012, the Plaintiff, as the representative liquidator of C law firm, filed a lawsuit against C on June 12, 2012 against C, seeking the cancellation of a service mark right transfer contract against C by Seoul Central District Court 2012Gahap49075, Defendant’s prohibition of use of service mark and cancellation of service mark right, etc. The appellate court of the above case (Seoul High Court 2013Na35018) (Seoul High Court 2013Na35018), and the appellate court of the above case (Seoul High Court 2013Na35018), stating that “Law firm C shall not raise any objection against the service mark or trade name currently being used by the Defendant in

(2) On August 9, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, as a representative liquidator of the law firm C, seeking compensation, etc. for damages arising from the Defendant’s infringement of the Defendant’s C service mark rights by the Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap61409, and the said court rendered a ruling on September 15, 2014 to the effect that “the Defendant shall pay KRW 800 million to the law firm C by September 25, 2014. The law firm C shall not raise any civil or criminal objections in connection with the use of the past or future service mark of the Defendant” (hereinafter “decision on recommending reconciliation 2”).

C. While a lawsuit is pending as above, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are as shown in the attached Form on September 22, 2014.