1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 220,000,00 and Defendant A with respect thereto from June 10, 2014.

The summary of this case is that the plaintiff seeks the payment of contingent fees under the delegation contract against the defendants.

On the premise of fact, the non-prosecution decision and the prosecutorial appeal C borrowed the name of E, the original resident, and filed a complaint against D and E for the crime of violating the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones that D obtained permission for the filling business of liquefied petroleum gas in the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and G, which is a development restriction zone.

On April 30, 2013, the prosecutor of the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office (hereinafter referred to as the "North Korean Prosecutors' Office") issued a disposition of suspicion (defluence of evidence) against the above accusation case.

C filed an appeal to the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office (hereinafter referred to as the "Seoul High Prosecutors' Office") on the non-prosecution disposition.

On June 19, 2013, Defendant A entered into a contract for the delegation of a lawsuit with the mandator C to delegate the case to the prosecution investigation stage of the instant case between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

According to the delegation contract of lawsuit, the delegating person shall pay 22 million won as the retainer and pay 220 million won as the contingent fee when he/she is prosecuted.

The defendant A signed the defendant corporation as his representative director on the next side of the client at the end of the contract.

On September 30, 2013, Seoul High Court ordered re-examination of the above appeal case.

On January 29, 2014, E was prosecuted and continued to be the Seoul Northern District Court 2014 High Court 2014 High Court 194.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's assertion that there is no dispute, Gap's 2-8 evidence, Gap's entire purport of pleading, whether the defendants are the actual parties to the delegation contract (Dispute 1) or not the defendants are the parties to the delegation contract (Dispute 2) (whether the defendants are the parties to the delegation contract).