1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 and its annual rate from June 23, 2016 to January 10, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statement and arguments as to the cause of the claim Gap 1 through Gap 4, the defendant around January 2015 requested the plaintiff, an attorney-at-law to file a criminal complaint of violation of the Copyright Act and to pay a penalty of KRW 15 million on behalf of the court of first instance, and the contingent fees shall be set at 20% of the economic benefits derived from winning the lawsuit, and an agreement is set at 50 million (hereinafter "the agreement of this case"), and the criminal complaint case against Eul representing the defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 50 million on November 25, 2015 and KRW 200 million on the day following the above judgment of KRW 200 million on which the court rendered a favorable judgment of KRW 205 billion on June 21, 2016 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da61838, Jun. 21, 2016).

2. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the amount of contingent remuneration of the contract of this case was determined according to the amount actually collected rather than the winning amount of the judgment.