1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked:

The defendant.

Facts of recognition

On December 21, 2012, B, the Defendant’s representative, entered into a contract with the Plaintiff for the delegation of litigation (hereinafter “instant delegation contract”) with respect to the instant claim (hereinafter “instant case”) against the Defendant and C, D, E, F, G, H, and I by the Seoul Central District Court No. 2012Gahap97036 against the Defendant and C, E, E, G, H, and I.

The commencement amount of delegated affairs stipulated in the instant delegation agreement was 5,50,000 won (including value-added tax), the contingent fee was calculated in accordance with the Rules on Attorney Fees, and the retainer fee and contingent fee were imposed on the other Defendants of the subject case as a special agreement.

On December 26, 2012, the Defendant paid KRW 5,500,000 to the Plaintiff according to the instant delegation contract.

On January 9, 2013, pursuant to the instant delegation contract, the Plaintiff submitted a letter of delegation of litigation and a written answer to the Defendant and seven other parties to the Seoul Central District Court, and was present at the first date for pleading on August 23, 2013.

On January 28, 2013, F, G, and I submitted a written reply to the court of the suit of the subject case that all the claims of the non-party company were accepted, and on September 3, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted a resignation report to the court with respect to the above F and two other persons.

On August 22, 2013, a non-party company applied for the correction of the value of the subject matter of lawsuit to KRW 4,496,902 and the refund of the stamp paid accordingly, since the value of the subject matter of lawsuit of the subject case, which was originally calculated by the court of the lawsuit of the subject case, is not a building standard value but an excessive calculated by applying the publicly notified land price to the publicly notified land price.

On October 1, 2013, the non-party company withdrawn the suit of the subject case, and the Defendants including the Defendant did not raise any objection to the withdrawal of the suit, and the subject case was concluded as the withdrawal of the suit by the non-party company on October 23, 2013.

The plaintiff is the defendant C, D, and D.