1. The Seoul Western District Court Decision 2005Gapo24961 decided Jan. 1, 2005.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed as the same.

1. The relationship between the parties concerned with the basic facts;

A. Plaintiff A is a person who was the representative director of Plaintiff D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”), and the Selection C is a spouse of Plaintiff A and was actually operating the instant company.

The defendant is a person who has been engaged in human resources and mid-term supply business in the trade name of E.

Unpaid wages shall be owed.

B. The Defendant and the instant company concluded a human resources supply contract for the instant company to pay wages to its employees upon supplying human resources to the instant company and paying wages to its employees.

(hereinafter “instant human resources supply contract.” The Defendant supplied daily workers to F Corporation that received from August 6, 2004 to October 15 of the same year pursuant to the instant human resources supply contract, and paid wages of KRW 3,960,000 to F Corporation that received from the instant company, but the instant company paid only KRW 2,80,000 among them, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 1,160,000.

(hereinafter referred to as “paid wages of this case”) shall make a decision of execution recommendation and a final and conclusive decision.

C. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff A and the Selection C seeking payment of the aforementioned amount of KRW 1,160,000 payable wage under this Court’s 2005da24961, and the Defendant issued a decision of performance recommendation to the effect that “Plaintiff A and the Selection C jointly and severally pay to the Defendant the amount equivalent to KRW 1,160,000 and KRW 6% per annum from October 16, 2004 to the delivery date of the copy of the instant complaint, and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”

Plaintiff

On December 28, 2005, A served a decision of performance recommendation accompanied by a duplicate of the complaint on January 12, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "decision of performance recommendation of this case") and on January 14, 2006 with respect to the designated parties C, the date for pleading of the appointed parties C was designated as the date for pleading of the designated parties C, but at the date for pleading of the designated parties C after served the decision of performance recommendation accompanied by a duplicate of the complaint on January 14, 2006.