1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 100,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 7, 2013 to December 18, 2014; and (b) the Plaintiff.

1. Around September 2006, the Plaintiff’s primary facts, C was discovered to operate an illegal casino and detained.

The defendant's East D received KRW 160 million from the plaintiff under the pretext of solicitation for the release of C.

D The amount of KRW 60 million among them shall be used at C’s attorney-at-law’s expense, and one hundred million among them shall be written for other purposes.

The plaintiff filed a complaint against D as a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and D was detained, and became subject to criminal trial by Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2007Ra3118.

In order to agree with the Plaintiff when D was sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months in the first instance trial, the Defendant was responsible for and repaid the amount of KRW 300 million ( KRW 100 million that D received in relation to D case, ② KRW 200 million that D borrowed from the Plaintiff through C before D several years), and drafted a monetary loan agreement and a loan certificate.

[Basic Facts] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3, Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant should give 300 million won as the criminal agreement amount to the plaintiff.

Although the cost of the case C is KRW 100 million and the loan KRW 200 million were considered in the calculation of the amount of criminal agreement, the agreement of criminal agreement should be viewed separately.

B. The Plaintiff’s solicitation for a case handled by the Defendant’s alleged public official constitutes illegal consideration in the amount of KRW 100 million against D.

Therefore, the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on the return of illegal consideration is invalid.

Since the Plaintiff deceivings the Defendant even though it did not lend KRW 200 million to D, the Plaintiff’s agreement to return KRW 200 million was revoked on the ground of fraud.

3. Determination

A. The return of the performance itself or in lieu of the performance under a separate agreement with the act of causing performance as well as the act of causing performance, whether the performance of the performance constitutes an illegal consideration return agreement with respect to KRW 100,000,000, which correspond to the statement of solicitation.