1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above part is revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 7, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking return of unjust enrichment against Han Bank (hereinafter “I Bank”) (Seoul Southern District Court 2010Kahap25712), but was sentenced by the above court to the judgment that “the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.” After filing an appeal, the Plaintiff and the Defendant (Seoul High Court 201Na6058, Seoul High Court 201; hereinafter “the instant delegation contract”) entered into a lawsuit delegation agreement (hereinafter “instant delegation agreement”) with respect to the instant case with the Defendant, an attorney-at-law on July 21, 2011.

(1) Five million won shall be paid as retainer (value-added tax shall be separately imposed when a tax invoice is issued).

(2) Statutory expenses, such as stamp fees and service fees, and expenses for duplication shall be separately calculated and paid.

(3) When a judgment in favor of the public official is rendered, the amount calculated by multiplying the successful remuneration by the ratio of 10% shall be paid.

(4) If a settlement outside the court (including conciliation through consultation with a mandator) is made, or a lawsuit is unilaterally withdrawn without consultation with a mandatary or the contract for delegation is terminated without good cause, it shall be deemed successful and contingent remuneration shall be paid.

B. As the Plaintiff did not pay the stamp and service fees for the case because of the economic circumstance, the Defendant paid the stamp and service fees on July 26, 201, the Defendant: (a) paid the stamp and service fees on behalf of the Defendant; (b) the Plaintiff prepared a loan certificate stating that the Plaintiff borrowed the amount of KRW 2,431,980 (i.e., the stamp and the service fees paid in lieu of the stamp and the service fees (=2,359,500 + the service fees + 72,480 won); and (c) the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to increase the contingent fees for the instant delegation contract from 10% of the initial winning price to 20% of the claimant’s amount.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant primary remuneration agreement”). C.

Since then, the plaintiff did not pay additional stamp and witness travel expenses according to the expansion of claims in the case case again, the defendant was given the above additional stamp on January 16, 2012.