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

The Plaintiff is an attorney-at-law, and Defendant C was the representative director of Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Bank”) from around 2011 to 2014.

The plaintiff and defendant C are known to the president of the Central Office of Korea under the jurisdiction of D Branch Association, and they are in common.

E (hereinafter referred to as “E”) announced the selection of a principal bank around June 2009, and seven banks, including the Defendant bank and the new bank, submitted the proposal to E in accordance with the above selection announcement.

E As a result of the final review of E, the new bank was selected as the principal bank of E (2.5 years within the period of the principal bank agreement).

Since November 21, 2011, E was planned to re-elect the principal bank, and the defendant bank and commercial banks submitted the proposal to E, and the defendant bank was selected as the principal bank as the result of the final review of E.

From November 10, 201 to February 19, 2013, the Defendant bank requested the Plaintiff to file a lawsuit amounting to KRW 81 million (excluding value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) on seven occasions. On January 2017, the Defendant bank requested the Plaintiff to file one lawsuit amounting to KRW 10 million.

In around 2017, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against C and F, the former representative director of the Defendant Bank, under the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and the facts of the complaint are as follows: (a) on November 6, 2011, the Defendant filed a complaint against the Plaintiff, the adviser of the H 1st hotel shop “E” located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G, “E exclusively engages in an exclusive transaction of a new bank with the principal bank; and (b) if the case was made in an unlawful or inappropriate manner, it would be immediately changed. Accordingly, the Defendant bank’s attorney appointed as the adviser of the Defendant bank to continuously delegate the case to the case and the transaction of E continues.” However, even if the Defendant bank was appointed as the principal bank of the Defendant bank from the beginning, the Defendant bank as the adviser of the Defendant bank.