Korea Mutual Savings Bank (Law Firm, Kim & Lee, Attorneys Park Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

United States Development Corporation

Seoul Central District Court Order 2011Kao150 dated June 21, 201

The decision of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Gahap84293, Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na61405, Supreme Court Decision 2010Da94298 Decided each of the Supreme Court Decision 2010Da94298 Decided that the respondent is KRW 94,641,370.

1. Basic facts

According to the records, each of the following facts is proved:

(a) Progress of a case subject to determination of the amount of litigation costs;

(1) On August 28, 2008, the applicant filed a lawsuit against the respondent for a loan claim of KRW 3 billion and delay damages therefor with the Seoul Central District Court 2008Gahap84293. The above court rendered a judgment dismissing all the claims of the applicant on May 26, 2010.

(2) The Claimant appealed to Seoul High Court No. 2010Na61405, and the above court rendered a judgment that the Respondent should bear the costs of the lawsuit on October 22, 2010, excluding part of the damages for delay.

(3) The respondent appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2010Da94298, but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on February 24, 201 and rendered a judgment that the respondent bears the burden of the cost of appeal.

(4) In each instance, the applicant appointed a law firm, the Pacific (hereinafter “Pacific”) as his/her attorney on August 208. According to the agreement entered into between the applicant and the Pacific around August 2008, the applicant shall pay 10 million won for each instance, but shall pay 10% of the amount finally recovered through the said lawsuit (excluding value-added tax) as his/her contingent fees. Pursuant to the said agreement, the applicant newly concluded the contract with the Pacific as the first instance payment on September 2, 2008 and the second instance payment on June 24, 2010, the amount of KRW 110 million for the first instance trial and KRW 350 million for the contingent fees, and the amount of KRW 300,000,000 for the second instance on December 23, 2010 for the first instance trial on December 23, 201 and the amount of KRW 300,000 for the first instance trial on December 3, 2010.

(b) Progress of the first instance decision;

(1) On March 14, 2011, the applicant filed an application with the respondent for the determination of the amount of litigation costs relating to the subject case at Seoul Central District Court 201Kao1150, and on April 12, 2011, the judicial assistant officer at the above court decided that the amount of litigation costs that the respondent shall reimburse to the applicant is KRW 83,341,370, as stated in the separate cost of litigation as indicated in the separate cost of lawsuit No. 1.

(2) On April 29, 201, the applicant filed an objection against the foregoing decision, and the said judicial assistant officer revoked the said decision as a re-design of the Province on April 29, 201 and rendered a decision to determine that the Respondent is KRW 94,641,370, such as the statement in [Attachment 2] Costs of Litigation.

(3) As to the above decision of April 29, 201, the respondent did not raise an objection, and on June 21, 201, the court of first instance revoked the above decision and rendered a decision of the court of first instance to confirm that the respondent is KRW 83,341,370, as stated in the separate sheet of litigation costs.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The above KRW 352 million paid by the applicant to Pacifica is not a successful fee for the second instance of the subject case, but a successful fee for the entire case. Thus, in calculating the attorney's fee paid by the applicant in the first instance of the subject case, not only KRW 11,00,000,000, but also the part corresponding to the first instance court among the above contingent fees shall be included in the calculation of the attorney's fee paid by the applicant in the subject case. The subject case's fee of KRW 22,30,000,000,000 is within the scope of the attorney's fee including the contingent fee, and the above KRW 2,23,00,000,000 shall be recognized as the attorney's fee in the first instance of the subject case. The decision of the first instance court erred by deeming the attorney's fee paid by the applicant in the first instance of the subject case as not only KRW 11,00,000,00.

3. Determination

In light of the fact that the applicant delegated the performance of the litigation on the subject case to the Pacific, as seen above, the success fee of the subject case is not determined separately at each instance, and in fact, the Pacific has been appointed at all instances of the subject case as the applicant's attorney and performed the litigation at all levels of the subject case, it is reasonable to view that the contingent fee is a contingent fee to the whole instance in the case of final winning the case regardless of the time of payment or the time of success or failure at each instance. In addition, it is reasonable to view that the contingent fee should be equally divided for each instance in calculating the attorney's fee in order to determine the amount of the subject case's litigation cost.

Therefore, the attorney fees actually paid by the applicant in the first instance court of the subject case shall be deemed to be KRW 128,33,333,33 2). Since the attorney fees of KRW 22,30,000 under the Rules on Remuneration are within the above amount, the above KRW 22,30,000 shall be deemed to be the attorney fees of the first instance court of the subject case. Since the error in the decision of the first instance is corrected, it is identical to the statement of the cost of lawsuit in attached Form 2 if the respondent re-calculated the amount of the

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the Respondent's amount of litigation cost to be repaid to the applicant shall be determined as KRW 94,641,370, and the first instance court's decision is unfair in its conclusion, so it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-ok (Presiding Judge)'s tenure of office

Note 1) = 9,800,000 + (3,000,000,000-500,000,000) ¡¿0.5/100

Note 2) = 11,00,000 (Advanced payment) +352,00,000 (shared payment) ¡À3