1. The Defendant’s KRW 54,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from August 20, 2012 to August 22, 2013.

1. Presumed factual basis

A. On July 7, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming return of unjust enrichment against Han Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I Bank”), with the Seoul Southern District Court (hereinafter “Seoul Southern District Court”), but was sentenced by the above court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim. On July 21, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an appeal and filed an appeal. On July 21, 201, the Defendant, an attorney-at-law, entered into a delegation contract with the above appellate court (hereinafter “instant delegation contract”) with respect to the instant appellate case (hereinafter “instant case”).

A settlement (including conciliation through consultation with a delegating person) outside the court for payment trial (including conciliation through consultation with the delegating person) is made in an amount calculated by multiplying the winning price by the 10% of the winning price at the time of a favorable judgment in which payment is made separately, or unilaterally withdraws a lawsuit without consultation with the mandatory person or terminates the delegation contract without good cause, legal expenses, such as stamp for payment of KRW 5 million (excluding value added tax at the time of issuance of the tax invoice), service fees, etc. shall be considered as winning the case.

B. After that, on July 21, 2011, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to increase the contingent remuneration of the instant delegation contract from 10% of the initial winning price to 20% of the claimant’s amount (hereinafter “instant primary remuneration agreement”); as the Plaintiff did not pay the stamp and service fee of the instant case due to the lack of economic circumstances; on the 26th of the same month, the Defendant paid the stamp and service fee on behalf of the Defendant; and on the 26th of the same month, the Plaintiff paid the stamp and the service fee on behalf of the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 2,431,980 (= KRW 2,359,50, the delivery fee of stamp and the service fee of KRW 2,480).

C. Since then, the Plaintiff failed to pay additional stamp and witness travel expenses according to the expansion of the purport of the claim in the above case. On January 16, 2012, the Defendant’s additional stamp and witness.