1. Of the instant lawsuits, the costs of the lawsuit pertaining to the Chuncheon District Court’s 2010 Jeju District Court’s 26328 case, and 2012 Gohap1029 case.

1. The judgment on the part of the claim for lawsuit costs in the Chuncheon District Court Decision 2010Gau26328, 2012Gahap1029 is demanding the payment of the costs of lawsuit by Defendant D, if the costs of lawsuit were to be paid due to the Defendants’ fault in the Chuncheon District Court Decision 2010Gau26328, which was brought by Defendant D while seeking the payment of the agreed amount against the Defendants and E, which was brought by the Plaintiff while seeking the payment of damages against the Defendants and E.

(2) The costs of lawsuit in the Chuncheon District Court Decision 2010Gau26328 case, 220 million won, 2012Gau1029 case). The amount paid as the costs of lawsuit can be repaid through the process of final determination of the costs of lawsuit, so there is no benefit to file a lawsuit separately.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim on this part is unlawful.

2. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, with the exception of the foregoing case, the costs incurred in relation to the remainder of the case were incurred by the Plaintiff due to the commission of aiding and abetting the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter “the commission of aiding and abetting the Plaintiff”) and the commission of attorney-at-law (hereinafter “the commission of attorney-at-law”) incurred in submitting a written appeal due to Defendant D’s perjury, and false accusation (hereinafter “the commission of attorney-at-law”) incurred in submitting a written appeal due to his perjury; the attorney-at-law’s fee incurred in submitting a written appeal due to his perjury (1.65 million won); and the attorney’s fee (1.65 million won) incurred in the course of submitting a written appeal; and the Chuncheon District Court 2012Guhap148 case (3.3 million won) against the Plaintiff, for which the judgment against the Plaintiff was rendered, the said costs were charged by the Defendants by

However, even if all of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 52 submitted by the plaintiff, the defendants conspired to commit a tort against the plaintiff, the fact that the plaintiff paid the above money, the defendants' act and the plaintiff's disbursement of expenses ( regardless of whether it is a tort).