Seoul Western District Court 201Kadan5085 ( October 16, 2012)

The lawsuit of this case in which the purport of the claim is unclear and it is not obvious to identify the subject matter of the lawsuit is unlawful.

Even if the Plaintiff’s written complaint, brief, etc. and the Plaintiff’s legal statement are integrated, the purport of the claim is unclear, and it cannot be identified as the cause of the claim, such as the source of claim and the basis of calculation of the amount, etc.

National Tax Collection Act

2012Na3039 Damage, etc.

KimA

Gangwon H 3 others

Seoul Western District Court Decision 201Gadan50885 Decided May 16, 2012

December 20, 2012

January 24, 2013

1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) against the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

1. Purport of claim

(A) The primary claim(s)

“1) The Defendants jointly and severally with the remainingB, Co., Ltd, CC, and EEF Capital, and jointly and severally with the Plaintiff (appointed parties, hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) and the designated FF Enterprise Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Appointed”) shall pay 00 won (additional tax amount) plus 9% per annum from July 25, 2007 to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint, and 20% per annum from the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint to each complete date, and 20% plus 20% per annum from the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint to the date of each complete date, and 6% per annum from August 19, 201 to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint to the Plaintiff and the appointed party, and 00 won, jointly and severally with the Defendant KimG Co., Ltd., Ltd. and the EEF Capital, and shall pay 6% per annum from August 19, 2011 to the date of delivery of a copy to the date of the complaint.”

B. Preliminary claim(s)

1) Defendant Hah performs the duty to deliver each of its identification materials and certificates subject to value-added tax to the Plaintiff and the Selection jointly and severally withCC and 00D.

B) Defendant KimG, and Korea shall comply with the exercise of the right to revise and investigate a disposition equivalent to the value-added tax amount of KRW 000, as well as with Defendant H, this Section andCC.

Alternatively,

1) A) The Plaintiff shall pay to Defendant KimG, this II, and the amount calculated by adding 20% per annum to the annual rate from the following day of delivery of a copy of a complaint to the full payment date, both Defendant KimG, and this II, and the Republic of Korea, as well as 17 million won jointly and severally with the Co., Ltd., CC, and EEgs, and 9% per annum from July 25, 201 to the date of complete payment.

B) Defendant Republic of Korea compensates the Plaintiff for KRW 000 in common with SouthB and performs its duty to remove the result of the disposition of non-prosecution on July 17, 2007 and the disposition of non-prosecution on November 20, 201 (Correction of each Disposition Document).

2 Purport of appeal

A. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff as to the defendants falling under the part ordering performance under the following sub-paragraph (b) shall be revoked.

(b)1)In the first place, and jointly and severally, the Defendants shall pay 000 won to the Plaintiff and the Selection plus 9% interest per annum from July 25, 2007 to the service date of a copy of the complaint, 200% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day of service of a copy of the complaint to the date of complete payment.

2) Preliminary, Defendant Hah, and this II, jointly and severally, shall deliver to the Plaintiff and the appointed parties each identification of the Switzerland lease worth 000 won of value-added tax, and jointly and severally return 00 won to the Plaintiff.

The reasoning of this court is that the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendants is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and that part is cited by the Civil Procedure Act and the main sentence of Article 11420. Thus, the part against the defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal against the