1. The Defendant’s KRW 134,901,361 as well as 5% per annum from August 28, 2012 to June 15, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On behalf of the Defendant, the law firm Daehan filed a lawsuit against B seeking the implementation of the procedure for the registration of transfer of other ownership in the termination of title trust as the Seosan Branch of Daejeon District Court 2004Gahap833, and was rendered a judgment against the Defendant on January 19, 2006.

In the case of Daejeon High Court 2006Na3965, the appellate court, the above law firm and the defendant agreed to pay the amount equivalent to 10% of the defendant's economic profit from the contingent fee when winning the case at the appellate court, and received a favorable judgment on November 22, 2007.

In Supreme Court Decision 2007Da91749 Decided the appeal of B, the above law firm and the defendant agreed to pay the defendant additional KRW 1.3 billion in addition to the amount paid by the defendant as the contingent fee in the event the case is closed by agreement between the defendant and B prior to the judgment of the court of final appeal.

According to the agreement with the defendant, B withdrawn the appeal on June 24, 2009, and the above appellate judgment became final and conclusive.

B. At the Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Gahap68864, Dao filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the aforementioned contingent fee of KRW 1.3 billion and its delay damages.

The Plaintiff was appointed as the Defendant’s legal representative and performed the instant case, but was ruled against the Defendant on February 7, 2012.

In Seoul High Court 2012Na25090, the appellate court, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay the contingent fees to the Defendant “the amount equivalent to 20% of the amount reduced from the claim amount (including interest) of the law firm multilateral.”

On August 27, 2012, the conciliation was concluded on August 27, 2012, that the Defendant pays 1 billion won to the law firm in the Republic of Korea.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including partial numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff performs the agency work for the case delegated to the Seoul High Court, and the defendant's liability to pay is 674,506.