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

A. On October 24, 2002, the Plaintiff filed an application for compensation in a criminal case (Seoul High Court 2008No143, 2008No143, 2008No1759, Nov. 17, 200) against Defendant B, who was the actual management owner of Defendant B, Co., Ltd. D (Evidence A) (hereinafter referred to as Defendant Co., Ltd.) prior to the amendment, from April 30, 201 to September 13, 2001. The above court rejected the Plaintiff’s application for compensation, alleging that the Plaintiff committed an illegal act, such as embezzlement of funds, false information disclosure, manipulation of stock prices, loss of accounting books, etc. by disposing of the above company’s shares held by the Plaintiff’s Defendant B, thereby causing damage to the market value. However, the above court rejected the Plaintiff’s application for compensation.

Then, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant B and the defendant company claiming damages of this case by taking the same facts as the cause of the above claim for compensation as the cause of claim.

Thus, the lawsuit of this case (the part against Defendant B) is a cause of claim, which is the same as the plaintiff's application for compensation in the above criminal case, and thus, it should be dismissed since it constitutes repeated claims.

B. According to the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which provides for the procedure and effect of application for compensation in the criminal trial proceedings, the court shall reject the application for compensation even in a case where the application for compensation is deemed lawful as well as where it is deemed that the application for compensation is groundless, or where it is not reasonable to issue an order for compensation.

(Article 32(1) of the above Act refers to the purport of not recognizing res judicata against a judgment rejecting an application for compensation. Of course, with respect to the judgment of the court which rejected the application for compensation, the applicant cannot make the same application for compensation again (the proviso of Article 32(3) of the above Act), but on the other hand, the applicant for compensation does not have the same application for compensation.