1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B among the instant lawsuit is as follows: (a) a decision of recommending reconciliation as of August 21, 2015 is rendered on October 2015.

1. Determination as to the termination of the lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant B

(a)The following facts in fact of recognition are apparent or obvious to this court by record:

1) On August 21, 2015, this Court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation with the following content (hereinafter “decision of recommending reconciliation of this case”).

The Defendant jointly and severally paid KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff until November 30, 2015. If the Defendants did not pay the said amount by the payment date, the Defendants shall pay the unpaid amount plus damages for delay calculated at a rate of 20% per annum from the day following the date of the payment to the date of the full payment. 2. The Plaintiff waives the remainder of the claim. 3. The Plaintiff shall bear the remainder of the litigation cost. 2. The original copy of the instant decision of recommending reconciliation was served on September 30, 2015 on the Defendant B Co., Ltd. (the first trade name was “Co., Ltd.”), but was modified as above on July 21, 2015, and was later served on the Defendant B (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendant B”).

However, the defendant D was treated as being unable to serve three times due to the absence of three-time closures or the addressee's unknown time.

B. With respect to a case pending in a lawsuit, the judgment court may ex officio make a ruling of recommending reconciliation for the fair resolution of the case, taking into account the parties’ interest and all other circumstances, to the extent not contrary to the purport of the claim (Article 225(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). The parties concerned may raise an objection against the ruling of recommending reconciliation within 2 weeks from the date of receiving the original copy of the relevant protocol or written decision, and the said two-

(Article 226 of the same Act). The original copy of the decision on recommending reconciliation in this case was served on September 30, 2015, and Defendant B did not raise an objection against the lapse of two weeks from that time.

Therefore, the part between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in the instant lawsuit was terminated upon October 15, 2015 when the filing period of the instant decision to recommend reconciliation was completed.

Nevertheless, Defendant B.