1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 60 million and the interest rate from June 1, 2005 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants in Gwangju District Court 2004Kadan53031 (the claim amounting to KRW 60 million). As to this, the above court became final and conclusive a ruling of recommending reconciliation with the following contents:

(2) The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20 million until January 31, 2005, KRW 20 million until March 31, 2005, and KRW 20 million until May 31, 2005.

- At the expiration of each of the above payment dates, the Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the full amount of the payable amount in gold of KRW 60 million and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the day on which the payment is made to the day of full payment.

- The plaintiff waives the remaining claims.

- Costs of litigation and reconciliation shall be borne by each party.

B. On November 19, 2004, the Plaintiff and the Defendants received the authentic copy of the instant decision of recommending reconciliation, and the said decision of recommending reconciliation became final and conclusive on December 4, 2004 because they did not raise any objection.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Inasmuch as the facts alleged in this Court, each of the evidence A1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In addition to the facts of the above recognition that there is no evidence to support that the Defendants had made installment payments under the decision on recommending reconciliation of this case, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 60 million won and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from June 1, 2005 to the date of full payment (the Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings) in accordance with the said decision on recommending reconciliation.

(A) The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of extinctive prescription in a situation where ten years have elapsed since the date of the decision on recommending reconciliation as above. Accordingly, the Defendant B’s decision on recommending reconciliation in this case was based on the Plaintiff’s forced performance of payment, and the Defendant C’s claim is unreasonable on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have any awareness with the Plaintiff prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit.