1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 24, 2014, the Defendant filed an application with the Korea Commercial Arbitration Board for arbitration seeking refund of KRW 264,000,000 against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant application for arbitration”). On June 24, 2015, the said arbitral Board dismissed the Defendant’s application.

B. In order to respond to the above application for arbitration, the Plaintiff appointed a law firm A as its agent and paid 11,000,000 won as remuneration (including value-added tax).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it violates the arbitration agreement between the original and the Defendant.

However, in full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 6, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement for support of waste plastic recycling business (hereinafter "agreement") on January 2, 2013, and all disputes arising in relation to the above agreement and its nonperformance are acknowledged as having been agreed to be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the Korea Commercial Arbitration Board (Article 7 (2) of the above Convention). According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to resolve all disputes related to the above agreement as an arbitration, and they do not agree to resolve all disputes under the private law between the plaintiff and the defendant as an arbitration. The lawsuit in this case is for the plaintiff's claim for damages on the ground that the claim in this case itself constitutes tort, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as a dispute related to the above agreement.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant sought the return of the subsidies that the Plaintiff did not perform its obligations under the Convention, such as the Plaintiff’s failure to provide such data, even though it was provided with waste recycling performance data from the Plaintiff.