1. The defendant's mediation against the plaintiff in Seoul Central District Court 2009Kadan209221 is the same.

1. The facts below the basis of facts are without dispute between the Parties:

In the case of collection money brought by the Defendant and C against the Plaintiff on June 5, 2009 (hereinafter “former lawsuit”), on October 13, 2009, the court rendered a decision in lieu of the conciliation as follows (hereinafter “instant compulsory conciliation”). The instant compulsory conciliation was finalized as it was, on the grounds that both parties did not raise any objection.

(Seoul Central District Court 2009Kadan209221). The plaintiff shall pay C 35,400,000 won to the defendant and 31,000,000 won to the defendant until December 31, 2009.

However, where the plaintiff delays the payment of the above amount, the unpaid amount and damages for delay shall be paid at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after delay to the day of full payment.

B. On July 13, 2012, the court granted the succeeding execution clause to the Defendant as to part of C’s claim (20,400,000 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from January 1, 2010 to the date of full payment).

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff fully repaid the obligations arising from the compulsory adjustment of the instant case.

B. On June 5, 2009, the Defendant and C filed a previous lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the premise that they had claims against D.

However, even though the Defendant and C already recovered all the claims from D, they were concealed and brought a previous lawsuit, and the Plaintiff did not raise any objection to the compulsory adjustment of the instant case.

Ultimately, the previous lawsuit constitutes a litigation fraud, and compulsory execution based on the compulsory adjustment of this case should be dismissed.

3. Determination

A. 1) Fact finding that the Plaintiff’s assertion of full repayment does not conflict between the parties, or that fact is recognized based on the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole, on the written evidence Nos. 3 through 6, No. 2, and No. 3. A) The Plaintiff paid to the Defendant KRW 10 million on December 1, 2010, and KRW 4 million on April 16, 201, and the Defendant appropriated the principal.

B. The plaintiff on August 28, 2012 at the defendant's request.