1. Arbitration No. 1411-0191, No. 1411, No. 1411, which is an incorporated association between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 24, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a business cooperation agreement for holding an import product exhibition organized by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant agreement”) and accordingly, the Plaintiff agreed to invite domestic participants, engage in advertising, and news reports on behalf of the Defendant, and receive service fees from the Defendant.

B. Pursuant to Article 12 of the instant contract, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for arbitration to the effect that “the Defendant shall refund KRW 5,151,000 remaining after subtracting KRW 4,849,000 from the operating expenses of KRW 10,000 that the Defendant paid in advance to the Plaintiff,” and that “only the amount actually paid out of KRW 8,150,000 for the advertising expenses claimed by the Plaintiff,” and that “the Plaintiff shall claim KRW 22,00,000 for the unpaid operating expenses, KRW 8,140,00 for the advertisement expenses, KRW 1,849,00 for the business fees, and the Plaintiff filed an application for counterclaim against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 22,00 for the unpaid operating expenses.

C. On January 27, 2015, the arbitral tribunal (the single arbitrator) rendered an arbitral award with the same content as that stated in the separate sheet of the arbitral award (hereinafter “instant arbitral award”). D.

The Plaintiff submitted the original copy of the instant arbitral award in this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The enforcement of the arbitral award shall be made by the judgment of execution by the court, and the arbitral award made in the Republic of Korea shall be enforced unless there is a ground under Article 36(2) of the Arbitration Act (Articles 37(1) and 38 of the Arbitration Act). Since there is no ground under Article 36(2) of the Arbitration Act concerning the arbitral award of this case, compulsory execution based on the arbitral award of this case shall be permitted.

Although the Defendant asserts to the effect that the determination of the instant arbitral award is unreasonable by re-convening the substance of the instant dispute, the Defendant’s allegation does not constitute the grounds stipulated in Article 36(2) of the Arbitration Act, and thus, accepted it.