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

A. On April 15, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) was delegated with all the authority for “D business” by C; and (b) was establishing and operating the said business; (c) the Defendant appeared to the Plaintiff on January 5, 201, and (d) filed a contract with C on delegation of business affairs (Evidence 4-1 = A-9-2); (d) and (e) a business consulting service contract (Evidence 4-2 = A-9-3) with the Plaintiff on April 5, 2010; (b) asserted that the Plaintiff was delegated with the authority for the said business first to the Plaintiff; and (c) demanded that the Plaintiff and the Defendant E-stock company transfer the shares of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff; and (d) requested a provisional disposition on the suspension of the representative’s performance of duties with respect to the said E-stock company.

B. Accordingly, on January 6, 2012, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant that the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant a sum of KRW 15 million on the condition of the withdrawal of the application for the above provisional disposition, and paid KRW 75 million on the same day, and KRW 40 million on January 30, 2012, respectively, to the Defendant.

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion of the cause of claim

A. The assertion does not have a fact that C has delegated the Defendant with the authority to the pertinent cruise business, and the Defendant made a false statement to the Plaintiff and received KRW 115 million from the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff agreed upon the above agreement due to the Defendant’s deception and suffered damages equivalent to the above agreement, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages amounting to KRW 15 million and damages for delay.

B. First of all, we examine whether the defendant had been delegated the authority with respect to the above business by C in spite of the fact that the defendant deceivings the plaintiff as the delegated authority, and the facts stated in the evidence No. 9-1, which corresponds to the plaintiff's argument, are hard to believe it as it is, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to recognize the above facts, and