1. On May 13, 2014, regarding the Defendant’s advertising payment case against the Plaintiff by the Seoul Central District Court 2013 Ghana857966.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking payment of the advertising price against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s joint business operators, as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Gaso857966, on March 2013, on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s joint business operators by inserting real estate sales advertising in the daily newspaper “Central Daily” several times; and (b) the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 14,30,000 from the advertising price for the advertisements requested around March 2013; (c) the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking payment of the advertising price against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s joint business operators.

(hereinafter referred to as “previous lawsuit”). (b)

As of October 30, 2013, the court of first instance rendered a decision on performance recommendation to the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff and joint business operators of the Plaintiff jointly and severally pay KRW 14,300,000 to the Defendant and damages for delay thereof,” and the said decision on performance recommendation was served on the Plaintiff on April 26, 2014, and became final and conclusive on May 13, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on performance recommendation”). (c)

On October 17, 2014, there was no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the advertising contract between the defendant and the plaintiff's joint businessmen was concluded on March 2013, 201, and the plaintiff's joint businessmen did not serve the notice of performance recommendation, and the defendant's claim against the joint businessmen was all dismissed.

On July 7, 2015, the judgment of the court of first instance rendered a ruling dismissing the defendant's appeal on the ground that the defendant appealed as Seoul Central District Court 2014Na65792, but the appellate court cannot recognize the advertising contract of the defendant's assertion. The judgment became final and conclusive on July 29, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Gap 12, Gap 13-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

(a)in respect of an action for objection against a final decision of performance recommendation;