1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff USD 56,407.77 and all of them from November 14, 2012.

1. Defendant C asserts that the instant lawsuit filed in the Republic of Korea is unlawful, since the international jurisdiction of the instant case is in the United States.

Article 2(1) of the Private International Act provides that "where a party to a lawsuit or a case in dispute is substantially related to the Republic of Korea, the court shall have the international jurisdiction in accordance with reasonable principles consistent with the ideology of allocation of international jurisdiction in determining the existence or absence of substantive relations." In addition, the court shall consider the existence or absence of international jurisdiction in consideration of the provisions of domestic law, and shall fully consider the special nature of international jurisdiction in light of the purport of the provision of paragraph (1)." Thus, the international jurisdiction shall be determined in accordance with the basic ideology of ensuring the appropriateness, appropriateness, prompt and economy between the parties concerned as well as personal interests, such as equity, convenience, and predictability, and the appropriateness, speed, efficiency, and effectiveness of the judgment, as well as the interests of the court or the state, such as the appropriateness, effectiveness, etc. of the judgment. Specifically, the issue of which interest among these various interests needs to be protected shall be determined based on the objective criteria for the suspension of law and the substantial relationship between the parties concerned and the case in dispute.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da18355 Decided July 15, 2010, etc.). With respect to the instant case, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence submitted by the parties, i.e., the existence of territorial jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Act is still an important factor in determining whether the disputed case is substantially related to the Republic of Korea. The Defendants have addresses or places of business in the Republic of Korea, and the Plaintiff’s property.