1. The Defendant’s KRW 38,73,100 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from March 28, 2016 to July 12, 2018, and the following.

Basic Facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 through 8 (including each number, if any) may be recognized by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings:

The plaintiff is a reconstruction improvement project association (hereinafter referred to as "renovation association") established for the purpose of implementing a housing reconstruction improvement project under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Urban Improvement Act") in Gangnam-gu Seoul, and the defendant is a person who has worked as the head of

Around September 2015, the Defendant and F entered into a litigation delegation agreement with the legal entity G (hereinafter referred to as “G”) to delegate the case of applying for a provisional measure against the Defendant’s dismissal and the prohibition of holding a general meeting against the Plaintiff’s dismissal and the dispute related thereto to the Defendant’s dismissal and the Plaintiff’s members, E, the president of the Plaintiff association, to the dismissal of the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s director F (the first agenda) and the suspension of the performance of duties (the second agenda). The Defendant and F, around September 2015, agreed to delegate the case of applying for a provisional measure against the prohibition of holding a special meeting to KRW 20 million (the value-added tax is separate for each retainer and the contingent fee of KRW 40 million (the contingent fee of KRW 20 million) and the contingent fee of KRW 20 million (the contingent fee of KRW 20 million where only the two agenda items

G on September 14, 2015, on behalf of the Defendant and F, filed an application for provisional disposition against D and E seeking the prohibition of holding the said extraordinary meeting with this Court No. 2015Kahap81095.

On September 21, 2015, the above court prohibited only the holding of an extraordinary general meeting with the suspension of the performance of duties by the defendant and F as an agenda item, and dismissed the application for dismissal agenda.

The Plaintiff’s general meeting, such as a provisional disposition suspending the effect of a resolution of dismissal, was held on September 22, 2015, and a resolution of dismissal against the Defendant and F (hereinafter “instant resolution of dismissal”) was adopted. The Defendant, on behalf of G around September 2015, on behalf of G, filed a provisional application for suspending the validity of the instant resolution of dismissal, with the Plaintiff KRW 20 million, and the contingent fee KRW 30 million.