1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 30, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap58953 against B and seven other parties (hereinafter “the above civil lawsuit”). On December 10, 2013, the Defendant appointed the law firm rate C, D, and E (Attorney in charge) as the litigation representative for the above civil lawsuit.

B. On February 19, 2014, the Defendant entered into a delegation contract (hereinafter “instant delegation contract”) with the following purport: “The Plaintiff’s additional appointment of the Plaintiff as an attorney for the said civil procedure: (a) the amount of advance payment KRW 20 million; (b) the contingent fee KRW 200 million; and (c) if the instant claim is entirely dismissed in the lower court’s special agreement, the commencement of the appellate trial will proceed without compensation; and (d) the honorariums shall be paid in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed at the lower court.”

C. The Defendant paid KRW 10 million out of the retainers stipulated in the instant delegation agreement, and agreed to pay the remainder KRW 10 million in the absence of self-sufficiency. D.

The defendant received a judgment against which the claim is entirely dismissed in the above civil procedure. Accordingly, the plaintiff submitted a petition of appeal, paid stamp according to the court's order of correction, and submitted the correction. The above appellate court also submitted a letter of delegation of lawsuit to the court.

E. In the above appellate trial of civil procedure, the Defendant additionally appointed another attorney-at-law as his/her attorney and demanded the return of KRW 10 million, which was already paid to the Plaintiff. On October 6, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the delegation contract of this case and submitted the resignation system to the appellate court of civil procedure on October 14, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including virtual numbers, and Gap evidence No. 1 is the same as Eul evidence No. 1) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant does not have any special reason to the plaintiff.