1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 25,00,000 and 5% per annum from September 7, 2014 to April 16, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendants delegated the judgment of the first and second instance court to the Plaintiff for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration against the land and buildings located in the Daejeon Seo-gu F, Daejeon.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to pay contingent remuneration in connection with the delegation of the above lawsuit, and the contingent remuneration was paid in conjunction with the first instance court in the same manner.

The content of the performance fee agreement is the same as that of the first and second instances.

When delegated affairs have succeeded to a judgment, settlement (including a decision of recommending reconciliation), mediation (including a decision in lieu of mediation), etc. outside of a trial, etc., the contingent remuneration shall be paid according to the following classifications:

The case of winning all: 50,000,000 won (including value-added tax): An amount calculated by the winning ratio of the above amount (including value-added tax);

C. The Plaintiff, on behalf of the Defendants, won in the instant case No. 2012Gadan45648, which was the first instance court of the said lawsuit.

Since then, the plaintiff performed a lawsuit on behalf of the defendants, and on January 21, 2014, the defendants and E adjusted. D.

The defendants themselves recognize that they won 50% of the won in the appellate court.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff is entitled to the payment of the contingent remuneration on the basis of the full winning judgment.

However, as the plaintiff voluntarily recognized, since the contract was concluded to link the contingent remuneration of the second instance to the same level as the first instance court (see, e.g., the application for payment order), it is not possible to calculate the contingent remuneration based on this, and the contingent remuneration should be determined in consideration of the appellate court.

Therefore, in full view of the above recognized facts and the above judgment, the Defendants should jointly and severally pay the Plaintiff the contingent remuneration according to the winning ratio in the appellate trial.

However, each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3 is alone.