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

2. The assertion and judgment

A. A. Around March 2013, the Plaintiff introduced the Defendant through A, an adviser of the law firm B, and around that time, entered into a delegation contract with the Defendant on the damages claim case No. 2012Gahap8197 and the Suwon District Court Ansan Branch 2013Gahap1049, and paid the Defendant KRW 20 million in total as advance payment. Around May 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a delegation contract with the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant regarding the criminal complaint of eight persons other than D and eight in connection with each of the above civil cases (referring to the delegation contract of the above lawsuit and referred to as “each delegation contract of this case”), and paid KRW 30 million in advance to the Defendant.

However, the defendant, at the time of each delegation contract of this case, did not faithfully perform the duties of due care of a good manager, despite the plaintiff's winning of the above civil cases and the indictment of eight persons, and eventually, each of the above civil cases was concluded to be withdrawn without a judgment due to lack of litigation procedures, and the criminal complaint case was concluded to be a non-prosecution disposition for the suspension of indictment or the suspension of witness.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff the total sum of KRW 50 million with unjust enrichment.

B. In light of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, 7, and 8, the parties to each of the instant delegation agreements concluded with the plaintiff shall be Law Firm E or Eul, and the defendant shall be Law Firm E or Attorney-at-Law affiliated with Eul or B, and shall be recognized facts that only he/she was in charge of each of the above civil cases and criminal complaint cases. Thus, Article 52 (1) of the Attorney-at-Law Act shall apply