On October 19, 2015, Daejeon District Court's Hongsung Branch 2015, 3536, was based on the self-resolution protocol against the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of the amount of KRW 20 million and delayed damages for the joint and several debt debt 20 million with the Daejeon District Court Hongsung Branch Branch 2015 Ghana Branch 3536. On October 19, 2015, the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated by applying the rate of KRW 5% per annum from September 28, 2006 to October 19, 2015 and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant confirmed that no obligation exists except as otherwise provided for in the foregoing provision (hereinafter referred to as “instant conciliation protocol”). B. On November 11, 2015, the Plaintiff drafted an agreement with the Defendant stating that “The Defendant shall pay KRW 10 million to the Defendant, and only the Defendant agreed with the Defendant, and shall not be held liable for civil liability thereafter.”

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant received KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff on November 11, 2015, and agreed to exempt the remainder of claims according to the instant conciliation protocol, and thus, all of the Plaintiff’s obligations based on the instant conciliation protocol were extinguished.

It is reasonable to view it.

B. The defendant's assertion and judgment that the plaintiff agreed to repay the remainder of the debt according to the conciliation protocol of this case, but first, the plaintiff prepared the agreement of this case by first applying for the agreement of this case, and there was no fact of exempting the plaintiff from the debt of this case.

The Defendant’s assertion appears to the purport that the agreement of this case constitutes false conspiracy or that the Plaintiff’s obligation still remains remaining. As such, the Defendant submitted a certificate of fact-finding C (Evidence No. 2) as evidence, but the protocol of this case is based on the conciliation protocol.