1. Defendant B’s KRW 80,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from August 12, 2015 to December 31, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

. was made;

C. Meanwhile, on July 14, 2014, Defendant B, the wife of Defendant C, concluded the instant delegation agreement with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant delegation agreement”) and signed and sealed the instant delegation agreement.

The client (A) : A (B) mandatory person (B) : case number A: The defendant 2014 high-scale 271 of the Seoul Southern District Act: C above parties enter into a delegation agreement on the handling of cases in the first instance of the above indicated case as follows:

Article 1 (Purpose) A shall delegate the processing of the above indicated case (hereinafter referred to as "entrusted affairs") to B, and B shall accept it.

Article 2 (Mandatary's Duties) A shall manage the affairs entrusted to an attorney-at-law with the due care of a good manager according to the terms and conditions of delegation, based on the rights and duties prescribed by statutes.

Article 4 (Advanced Remuneration) (1) A shall pay to B, simultaneously with the formation of a delegation contract, gold million won (value-added tax separately) with the starting remuneration.

Article 5 (Performance Remuneration)* see Special Agreements

(a) Where contingent remuneration is successful, remuneration shall be paid according to the following classification:

(3) The release decision and the suspension of execution of detention shall be decided by the request for review of legality and release on bail.

(b) If Party B terminates a delegation agreement without good cause after significant efforts have been made for the management of delegated affairs, the contingent remuneration set out in the above paragraph A shall be paid.

Matters of special agreement

1. A 150,000 won shall be paid as contingent remuneration when a person is sentenced to release on bail or suspension of execution;

(Separate Table of Value-Added Tax)

D. On September 2, 2014, the Plaintiff claimed permission for release on bail against Defendant C, but was dismissed on September 11, 2014.

On the other hand, prior to the expiration of the detention period against Defendant C, a new detention warrant was issued pursuant to the aforementioned 2014Gohap308, which was additionally prosecuted on December 9, 2014.

After that, the law firm H, a joint counsel of Defendant C, filed a claim for permission for release on bail against Defendant C on December 15, 2014.