The lawsuit of this case in which the purport of the claim cannot be specified because it is unclear 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.

2011 Ghana 50885 Damages, etc.

KimA

SouthB 7 others

April 18, 2012

May 16, 2012

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. The primary purport of the claim

(a) The defendants jointly and severally pay 00 won to the plaintiffs (designated parties, and hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiffs") and the designated parties plus 9% per annum from July 25, 2007 to the service date of a copy of the complaint, and 20% per annum from the service date of a copy of the complaint to the service date of a copy of the complaint (part of a claim). (b) the defendant southB, Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., and Kim E shall jointly and severally return 00 won to the plaintiff and the appointed parties. From August 19, 2011 to the service date of a copy of the complaint, 6% per annum for the above amount plus 20% per annum from the service date of a copy of the complaint to the service date of a copy of the complaint (part of claim).

2. Claim in part of the preliminary claim;

(a) (1) DefendantCC, riverF, and 0G jointly and severally perform the obligation to deliver to the Plaintiff and the Selection any of their respective identifications equivalent to value-added tax amounting to KRW 000.

(2) Defendant KimE, and Korea shall exercise its right to revise and investigate the disposition equivalent to the value-added tax of KRW 000 as the value-added tax amount, as follows: (i) be discharged to Defendant Qualcomm, Gangwon, and H; and (ii) be selected; and

(b) (1) The amount calculated by adding 9% per annum from July 25, 201 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint to 0% per annum from the following date of delivery of a copy of the complaint to the plaintiff and the selected person, jointly and severally, the amount calculated by adding 9% per annum to 000 won, and the amount calculated by adding 20% per annum from the following date of delivery of a copy of the complaint to the full date.

(2) Defendant NamB, and Korea jointly compensate the Plaintiff and the appointed parties for three million won, and perform the obligation to remove the result of the non-prosecution disposition document dated 17, 2007 and the non-prosecution disposition document on November 20, 201 (each disposition document’s correction).

We examine whether the lawsuit in this case is legitimate or not. The plaintiff sought to perform the obligation to pay money, etc. in the principal and conjunctively as stated in the purport of the claim against all or part of the defendants, while comprehensively considering the complaint, briefs, etc. submitted by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's legal statement, the purport of the claim is unclear, and it is impossible to identify the cause of the claim, such as the source of the claim and the basis for calculation of the amount. Thus, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.