1. As to the case of Korea Commercial Arbitration No. 1411-0231 (Counterclaim) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the above case is applicable.

1. Presumed factual basis

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the vessel’s vessel’s vessel’s “Maskyho Lake” and “Maskystar,” and the Defendant, among the above vessels, performed each time charter on seven occasions and two times with respect to the said vessel’s “Masky Star,” and lent it to the Plaintiff and returned it to the Plaintiff.

B. At the time of each of the above charter contracts, the laws of the Republic of Korea shall apply to all disputes arising, and shall settle the dispute by arbitration procedures in the Republic of Korea.

C. The Defendant filed an application with the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board for the payment of damages (the main application) on the ground that the navigation speed of each of the above vessels provided by the Plaintiff and the amount of oil consumption failed to satisfy the terms of the charter party agreement, and there was an additional consumption of oil. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a counterclaim for the payment of unpaid charterage under the charter party.

The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board on March 27, 2015 attached Form concerning the counterclaim

1. As described in the Schedule, the main application shall be accompanied;

2. Each arbitral award (hereinafter referred to as “instant award”) was made as described.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1, Eul's evidence 1 to 3 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The enforcement of a judgment on the cause of a claim shall be made by the judgment of execution by the court, and an arbitral award made in the Republic of Korea shall be enforced unless there is any ground for revocation of the arbitral award as prescribed by law (Articles 37(1) and 38 of the Arbitration Act). Therefore, compulsory enforcement based on the attached Table 1. of the instant judgment between the plaintiff and the defendant should be permitted unless there is such ground for revocation.

3. Determination as to the existence of the grounds for revocation

A. The Defendant’s argument that the arbitral award in this case reduced the amount of damages without examining the amount of damages claimed by the Defendant, and did not state the grounds or reasons in calculating the amount of damages claimed by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, this case.