1. As to the arbitration case of Korea Commercial Arbitration No. 1411-0017, which is an incorporated association between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) On April 25, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into an arbitration agreement with the Defendant to enter into a contract for remodeling and extension works of the building with the Defendant, and if a dispute arises in connection with construction works, the Korea Commercial Arbitration Board (hereinafter “Korea Commercial Arbitration Board”).

(2) There was no separate agreement on the appointment of an arbitrator in accordance with the Arbitration Rules. (2) There was a dispute over the return of KRW 23,272,723 to the Defendant that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant.

On April 23, 2014, the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (a single arbitrator C) rendered an arbitral award in the arbitral proceedings conducted upon the Plaintiff’s request on April 23, 2014 (hereinafter “instant arbitral award”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 and the purport of whole pleadings

B. According to the above findings, compulsory execution based on the instant arbitral award should be permitted unless there are special circumstances.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment

A. The defendant asserts that compulsory execution should not be permitted on the grounds that the arbitral award of this case has the grounds for revocation under Article 36(2) of the Arbitration Act as follows.

1) As the instant arbitral award did not examine the factual relationship with the evidence submitted by the Defendant in the instant arbitral proceeding, it erred by mistake in fact in the instant arbitral award. (2) Article 11 of the Arbitration Act provides that the number of arbitrators shall be determined by agreement between the parties, and that the number of arbitrators shall be three unless agreed. The instant arbitral proceeding is erroneous by organizing the arbitral tribunal as a single arbitrator.

3) There is no receipt of detailed data or explanation in the arbitral proceedings. (b) The arbitral award has the same effect as the final and conclusive judgment of the court between both parties (Article 35 of the Arbitration Act). Thus, the assertion that there is a mistake of fact merely is a fact-finding is the arbitral award of this case.