1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 3 million with 15% per annum from March 31, 2015 to the date of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on the delegation of a lawsuit by setting the amount of KRW 10 million (in addition, the additional tax) and KRW 20 million (in case of full winning of the contingent fee, the amount of KRW 20 million (excluding the additional tax) with respect to the case where the Defendant, etc. against the Defendant, etc. was prohibited from holding a meeting of the board of representatives (No. 2014Kahap1051).

(hereinafter “instant delegation contract”). B.

On November 7, 2014, the above court decided that “C should not hold a meeting of representatives” with respect to the above provisional disposition case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the defendant won all of the case of provisional disposition prohibiting the opening of the board of representatives, it is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 3 million won (the amount of KRW 10 million contingent fee of KRW 20 million) and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from March 31, 2015 to the day following the day of complete payment, pursuant to the delegation contract of this case.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion (i) The instant delegation agreement was concluded without a general meeting resolution in violation of Article 21 of the Articles of Incorporation, and thus null and void.

② The scope of the instant delegation contract is up to the first instance court of the merits, and the conclusion of the delegation contract on the condition that the general meeting of partners is held normally, but the Defendant did not hold the general meeting. As such, the Defendant’s claim for contingent fees with only the provisional disposition case is in violation of social rules and social order.

③ Since a cooperative head and acting director agreed that the acceptance fee for a preliminary injunction case is too high due to the rashness and inexperience of D, it is invalid as an unfair legal act under Article 104 of the Civil Act.

B. We examine the allegation of violation of the articles of association 11.

(b).